Backup **to** SAN

[simwood]

Hi folks,

We're deploying Veeam to a new site so are keen to get it right.

We want to put the Veeam host as a VM but with a NIC on our storage network. I've found lots of how to's for *reading* directly from the production VM LUNs but nothing about writing, i.e. using a LUN as a backup destination. I appreciate we can mount a LUN using an iSCSI initiator but presumably this will format it as an NTFS volume rather than a VMFS making the backups only useful from within the Veeam VM. This may be desirable but I'm wondering if instead we can use a VMFS volume as a destination? We want to maximise performance for dedupe etc. and if possible avoiding the windows VM running Veeam needing to be in the path when we're using the backups but that may be silly. Any insight appreciated.

Thanks
Simon

[dellock6]

Formatting the backup LUN in NTFS has also another advantage: if you loose your Veeam server, you can mount it on any windows WM with an iscsi initiator, install quickly another copy of Veeam, read the backup file and start restoring. Even your notebook can do this.
If the LUN in VMFS formatted, there is another additional layer in between: LUN - vmfs - ntfs - veeam files, and you need an ESXi server to read the lun, mount the vmdk disk in a windows VM, and start to restore from here. To me is a much longer activity list.

Also, consider vmdk can only be 2tb in size, so your veeam repository can only be that big, unless you join multiple vmdk files via windows software raid aka spanned volume.

I'd rather use a lun directly formatted as ntfs...

Luca.

[Vitaliy S.]

Writing directly to VMFS is not supported and is not considered as best practice. I would also go with NTFS formatted LUN as Luca has suggested, as in this case you will not need ESX(i) server to get your backup files from the target storage.

P.S. here is an existing discussion about why not to store your backups on VMFS > Don't Store Backups on VMFS...But why not?

[simwood]

Thanks folks, that's helpful.

[floh-erfurth]

Hi,
we're running windows as vm-Guest on ESXi. On that machine there is Veeam Backup&Replication installed (inclusive Proxy). About Backup Repository I'm not sure yet which of both is better (by performance):
- Mount BackupRepository by using iSCSI Initiator
- On ESXi-Host-Machine I have to add storage where datas of VeeamBackup Repository is stored and then add this data as harddisk to VM of VeeamBackup.

Background:
Datastore, on which VM-Data are stored, for ESXi is not installed on that machine but on different machine (Nexenta), so ESXi access Datastore by iSCSI. So I'm confused...

I'd like to use "Direct SAN Access" so I think, either ESXi host and VeeamProxy must be able to access to Datastore AND BackupRepository by iSCSI, or am I wrong?

If I didn't write clear I could create and attach an image how our vm/storage/veeamBackup are connected.

cu Floh

[Vitaliy S.]

Hi Florian,

I would recommend using in-guest iSCSI initiator from the backup repository to the storage device, because of the reasons mentioned in this thread: Don't Store Backups on VMFS...But why not?

Thanks!

[floh-erfurth]

Hi, thank you for your quick answer.
I carefully read the thread you pointed. The only cause is to avoid further depency (VMFS + NTFS instead of only NTFS).

Here is my plan so I can explain better:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/glgjcfbnfs17e ... I-plan.png

I think "Virtual Appliance Mode" is the way to go, am I right?
First test shows following peak values: 99% Source, 12% proxy, 0% network, 0% target with 12MB/s.
So I'd like to improve performance, so I'm wondering why is source poor? Another issue is, I cannot backup from another ESXi-Host with "Virtual Appliance Mode".

cu Floh

[floh-erfurth]

D'oh... cannot edit my last post. Here my update.
I tried with Direct SAN mode with following result:
99% Source, 15% Proxy, 0% Network, 0% Target 13MB/s

Well... this is bad. Backed up VM is a linux-machine.
cu Floh

[foggy]

I think "Virtual Appliance Mode" is the way to go, am I right?

Yes, I would recommend to go with Virtual Appliance mode for your setup.

First test shows following peak values: 99% Source, 12% proxy, 0% network, 0% target with 12MB/s.
So I'd like to improve performance, so I'm wondering why is source poor?

Make sure that hotadd (Virtual Appliance) mode is being effectively used for VM data processing and Veeam B&R does not fail over to network mode. You can check that in the job statistics by clicking the particular VM to the left and locating the [hotadd] or [nbd] label right by the proxy server's name selected for processing.

Another issue is, I cannot backup from another ESXi-Host with "Virtual Appliance Mode".

According to your design, the host running backup proxy server VM has the datastore where VMs running on another host reside connected to it, which is the main requirement for hotadd. However, there are some known limitations that you can check if you see that hotadd is not used.

[floh-erfurth]

Hi, thank you very much. In the meanwhile I got "Direct SAN Mode" working. So is "Virtual Appliance mode" still prefered way?

[veremin]

It might be worth conducting a speed comparison for both of the methods, and only after that making a final decision.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.

[Vitaliy S.]

Since you've already configured SAN mode, then continue running your jobs using this backup method. I believe the performance would not differ much especially on incremental job passes.

Btw, if you're running direct SAN mode on a Windows 2008 proxy, then please take a look at this post that might improve backup job performance rates.

[floh-erfurth]

Hi Vitaliy,
thank you for your information. We're running VeeamBackup on Windows 7. I switched to "Virtual Applicance Mode" to see the difference tomorrow. But as Eremin said I should prefer "Virtual Appliance Mode" for restoring because there is no SAN-support I think I'll keep "Virtual Appliance Mode".

After looking results of last nightly backup I found out performance differs on VMs. The one says aroud 100MB/s while others are lower (around 10MB/s) even all are using same backup configuration (except one Windows server where VSS is enabled for backup). Also I noticed that I always get similiar performance-result on same machine with "active full".

So... I think I should ask you, how should a reasonable benchmark look like in order to be able to compare?

cu Floh

[Vitaliy S.]

But as Eremin said I should prefer "Virtual Appliance Mode" for restoring because there is no SAN-support I think I'll keep "Virtual Appliance Mode".

It doesn't matter what backup mode you're using to backup your VMs. If you have a virtual backup proxy, then HotAdd mode will be automatically used (if applicable) during restore operations.

After looking results of last nightly backup I found out performance differs on VMs. The one says aroud 100MB/s while others are lower (around 10MB/s) even all are using same backup configuration (except one Windows server where VSS is enabled for backup).

Yes, that's fully expected. See this thread for further details: Very different backup speed on VM's

[floh-erfurth]

Ok, then everything is clear. I remember slow backup of VM's is made where CBT was disabled. So I'll keep Direct SAN mode.

Thank you very much!
Cool forum since there is really fast response I almost don't know in other forums (except qnap forum where response is fast too).

cu Floh

[Comfortel]

Hello,

I'm new in Veeam B&R 6.5.
I have successfull installed it on Windows 2003 and 2008.
Connected iSCSI target (see it in windows disk management snap-in).
But from some reason I can't do a backup job to write on this LUN.

LUNs are accessed by ESXi (licensed) host's without any problem but Veeam don't see files as directed connected to windows.
I check some tutorials about NAS/SAN iSCSI config for Veeam B&R but I can not success do a backup to LUN formated by ESXi hosts (VMFS).
I read that Veeam support VMFS LUNS am I right?.
I test on Essential license and 30 Trial, - the same LUN connected but not accessible or maybe I just don't see where to find that LUN in Veeam.

Sorry if that question Was mentionet ealier.

I wish to not use NFS to storage, and not iSCSI NTFS volume due to corruption when used by multiple hosts.
VMFS LUNS so now don't corrupt even used by multiple HOSTS.

Regards,

[foggy]

Michal, if I understand you right, you are trying to use VMFS volume to store backups. Please be aware that storing backups on VMFS is not considered as best practice due to the reasons described in the topic referred to above.

Also, Direct SAN mode cannot be used to write data on target. Network mode is always used.

Thanks!

[aschoeggl]

SETUP:

Code: Select all

ESXi 5.1
Local SAS Storage
External iSCSI Storage
2 VMs - 1 VM vor Veeam , 1 VM Windows Server 2008R2 File/Exchange

Goal: Backup the Windows Server VM

A:
connect to iSCSI Target using VMware
Create ESX Datastore
add Harddisk to VM Veeam , using iSCSI Datastore

or

B:
connect to the target with Microsoft iscsi Initiator inside veeam


please give me your pesonal pro and cons
thanks !

[foggy]

Alexander, please look through the topic you've been merged into, should give you some thoughts. Feel free to ask any additional questions.

[cjcrosby]

What about rather than mounting a lun in-guest with the MS iSCSI initiator, could you mount a lun in the Veeam vm using an RDM pointing at the lun and then format as ntfs inside the Veeam vm?

[foggy]

Yes, this is also a possible way of setting up backup repository.