Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
mcz
Veeam Legend
Posts: 864
Liked: 185 times
Joined: Jul 19, 2016 8:39 am
Full Name: Michael
Location: Rheintal, Austria
Contact:

planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by mcz » 9 people like this post

Hi everyone,

using planned failover is a nice thing - I was using it many times for maintenance windows in the past, but it took a while to have those two replication passes gone by until the vm got started (which took some minutes in my case and so it wasn't a "clean" transition).

Now CDP failover itself has some offset in terms of replication due to the fact that you're not replication every millisecond, so you might loose a bit of data one you failover. That's why I was curious to see how the planned failover works and I did a small test. I saw the following (shortened):

- vm was shut down
- creating long-term restore point (+34 sec)
- starting replication (+20 sec)
- failing over (+20 sec)

WOOOOOW!!

So doing a planned failover here is done in a bit more than one minute (and this is for sure not the fastest hardware in the world) - that is fantastic! Very well done veeam, thanks very much, what a great product! :D
Mildur
Product Manager
Posts: 8913
Liked: 2357 times
Joined: May 13, 2017 4:51 pm
Full Name: Fabian K.
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by Mildur » 1 person likes this post

Hi Michael

Thank you for your great feedback. I will share it with the rest of the team :)

Best,
Fabian
Product Management Analyst @ Veeam Software
ralfl
Novice
Posts: 8
Liked: 4 times
Joined: May 02, 2016 9:59 am
Full Name: Ralf Luithle
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by ralfl » 2 people like this post

Be aware of this, if you loose your Veeam Server Running CDP you have no possiblity to failover. Place the Server on DR Site.
mcz
Veeam Legend
Posts: 864
Liked: 185 times
Joined: Jul 19, 2016 8:39 am
Full Name: Michael
Location: Rheintal, Austria
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by mcz » 1 person likes this post

It is placed on the DR site, how did you come to the conclusion that it wasn't?
Psylak
Novice
Posts: 5
Liked: 1 time
Joined: Nov 13, 2017 7:27 am
Full Name: Shawn Hentze
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by Psylak » 1 person likes this post

What was the failback performance like?

In my experience, the failback takes exponentially longer than failover, due to calculating fingerprints/digests. Most likely just a configuration error on my side though.
TonioRoffo
Enthusiast
Posts: 55
Liked: 6 times
Joined: Jun 18, 2009 2:27 pm
Full Name: Yves Smolders
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by TonioRoffo » 1 person likes this post

I was also surprised at the failback time, but okay, that's a bit of a luxury problem.
mcz
Veeam Legend
Posts: 864
Liked: 185 times
Joined: Jul 19, 2016 8:39 am
Full Name: Michael
Location: Rheintal, Austria
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by mcz »

if your hardware is able to calculate the digests fast AND you're not having too much data, it should still be quite "fast". of course, not seconds, but maybe some minutes...
RubinCompServ
Service Provider
Posts: 280
Liked: 70 times
Joined: Mar 16, 2015 4:00 pm
Full Name: David Rubin
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by RubinCompServ »

ralfl wrote: Apr 29, 2024 5:58 am Be aware of this, if you loose your Veeam Server Running CDP you have no possiblity to failover. Place the Server on DR Site.
The problem (for me) with placing the Veeam server on the DR side is licensing. We're using Veeam Rental licensing which means that, for the purposes of replication, as long as the VM is getting backed up by that VBR, it doesn't consume an additional license when it gets replicated. However, if we place a VBR server in DR and use that to perform the replication, it's not backing up the VMs (that's the VBR on the Prod side), so it will charge us for additional replication licensing. We're still at the early stages of using Veeam for replication (we were using VMware Availability, until Broadcom got involved), but we think the solution will be to have a second "cold" VBR in DR with the Config Backup getting sent there.
mcz
Veeam Legend
Posts: 864
Liked: 185 times
Joined: Jul 19, 2016 8:39 am
Full Name: Michael
Location: Rheintal, Austria
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by mcz »

Sorry David, I don't get that. If you're having a VBR-server, no matter where it "sits", it consumes the same amount of licenses. If your production goes down, you will bite yourself to not have the vbr on the DR site. For instance, CDP-vms can't be started without VBR-servers actions.

So you'd have to move your VBR-server to the DR and everything else could stay as it was: Proxies, Storages, etc. VBR would still connect to the same vcenter/hosts and would do its job as before. You "just" have to be careful with e.g. FLR, where (if I recall correctly) it would mount your backup to the machine with the explorer open and if you have a bad link between the two sites, that could be painful. But I assume there is a good link as you'd have to do replication and such stuff...
RubinCompServ
Service Provider
Posts: 280
Liked: 70 times
Joined: Mar 16, 2015 4:00 pm
Full Name: David Rubin
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by RubinCompServ »

mcz, that's not the case with rental licenses. If I have a VBR licensed for 1100 instances, I am licensed for 100 VMs. If I use that VBR to back up 100 VMs (which will consume all of the instances), I can use that VBR to also replicate those 100 VMs without using additional instances. However, if I use a different VBR to replicate those VMs, I will end up consuming 1100 instances on BOTH servers.

Moving the entire VBR to the DR side is an interesting thought. Right now, it's the Mount server for all of the Linux repos so I'd need to repoint those. Other than that, though, it's like you say - everything would stay the same (I think).
MarkBoothmaa
Veeam Legend
Posts: 184
Liked: 49 times
Joined: Mar 22, 2017 11:10 am
Full Name: Mark Boothman
Location: Darlington, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by MarkBoothmaa »

Are you using Enterprise manager to manage the licensing for both VBR servers?
RubinCompServ
Service Provider
Posts: 280
Liked: 70 times
Joined: Mar 16, 2015 4:00 pm
Full Name: David Rubin
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by RubinCompServ »

Right now, there is only one VBR, which lives on the Prod side. But even if I had the second VBR and managed it with the same EM, I don't think that would change things.
tyler.jurgens
Veeam Legend
Posts: 304
Liked: 145 times
Joined: Apr 11, 2023 1:18 pm
Full Name: Tyler Jurgens
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by tyler.jurgens »

RubinCompServ wrote: May 13, 2024 3:17 pm However, if I use a different VBR to replicate those VMs, I will end up consuming 1100 instances on BOTH servers.

Moving the entire VBR to the DR side is an interesting thought. Right now, it's the Mount server for all of the Linux repos so I'd need to repoint those. Other than that, though, it's like you say - everything would stay the same (I think).
That's the idea here. Move the VBR itself to the DR site, don't duplicate it just to handle replication.

The other way would be to have regular configuration backups sent to the DR location so you can restore from that config, but running the VBR in the DR would be easier.
Tyler Jurgens
Veeam Legend x2 | vExpert ** | VMCE | VCP 2020 | Tanzu Vanguard | VUG Canada Leader | VMUG Calgary Leader
Blog: https://explosive.cloud
Twitter: @Tyler_Jurgens BlueSky: @tylerjurgens.bsky.social
Mildur
Product Manager
Posts: 8913
Liked: 2357 times
Joined: May 13, 2017 4:51 pm
Full Name: Fabian K.
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by Mildur » 1 person likes this post

RubinCompServ wrote: May 13, 2024 3:59 pm Right now, there is only one VBR, which lives on the Prod side. But even if I had the second VBR and managed it with the same EM, I don't think that would change things.
When you connect both backup server to the same Enterprise Manager, the same VM (backup job on 1st VBR, replica job on 2nd VBR) should only consume the rental license once. If not, then it should be investigated by our support team.

Best,
Fabian
Product Management Analyst @ Veeam Software
mcz
Veeam Legend
Posts: 864
Liked: 185 times
Joined: Jul 19, 2016 8:39 am
Full Name: Michael
Location: Rheintal, Austria
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by mcz »

RubinCompServ wrote: May 13, 2024 3:17 pm Moving the entire VBR to the DR side is an interesting thought. Right now, it's the Mount server for all of the Linux repos so I'd need to repoint those. Other than that, though, it's like you say - everything would stay the same (I think).
If you move your VBR to the DR site and if that causes some significant performance penalties due to the network between those two sites, you could still deploy a new (linux) proxy on the production site so that this one acts as the mount-server for your linux repos. That should cover most of the usecases...
tyler.jurgens
Veeam Legend
Posts: 304
Liked: 145 times
Joined: Apr 11, 2023 1:18 pm
Full Name: Tyler Jurgens
Contact:

Re: planned failover CDP - wooooow

Post by tyler.jurgens » 2 people like this post

Mildur wrote: May 14, 2024 7:27 am When you connect both backup server to the same Enterprise Manager, the same VM (backup job on 1st VBR, replica job on 2nd VBR) should only consume the rental license once. If not, then it should be investigated by our support team.

Best,
Fabian
Great solution here if there is a concern about re-working the Veeam deployment to handle a DR based VBR. Spin up EM, have it handle the licensing and connect your on-premises and DR site VBRs. Have the on-premises VBR handle backup/backup copy jobs and have the DR VBR handle replication. Easy and quick.
Tyler Jurgens
Veeam Legend x2 | vExpert ** | VMCE | VCP 2020 | Tanzu Vanguard | VUG Canada Leader | VMUG Calgary Leader
Blog: https://explosive.cloud
Twitter: @Tyler_Jurgens BlueSky: @tylerjurgens.bsky.social
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dwesterman and 79 guests