Discussions specific to the VMware vSphere hypervisor
FedericoV
Veeam Vanguard
Posts: 10
Liked: 9 times
Joined: Aug 21, 2017 3:27 pm
Full Name: Federico Venier
Contact:

Re: Deduplication Storage as first target OK nowadays?

Post by FedericoV » Nov 26, 2018 11:32 am

Below I have summarized few performance data from my tests with ReFS. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
Talking about Synthetic Full with ReFS and StoreOnce, I like to call them Virtual Synthetic Full (VSF) to differentiate from traditional Synthetic that required a server for reading old backup, processing/merging, and writing the new full.
StoreOnce VSF
It does not rehydrate data, the VSF process is offloaded to StoreOnce. Basically, Veeam completes the incremental backup and then it sends to StoreOnce a small file with the instructions for building the new full. At this point the backup is over, but the job holds on until StoreOnce has completed the VSF and has generated all the new full backup files.
ReFS VSF
It is very fast, it adds just 35" to the entire job.
Server details: Apollo 4200, 1 socket @18 cores, 24*12TB HDD in RAID60 (12+12), 2 FC ports at 16Gb/s
Job details: 18VMs, Processed 1.3TB, Read 295GB, Transferred 125GB, Processing rate 3GB/s (Average >3GB/s Peak 3.7GB/s)
Job duration: Incremental 5':30", VSF 6':05"
VSF job details
  • Job started at 11/10/2018 6:08:45 AM
    Building VMs list 00:07
    VM size: 1.8 TB (1.3 TB used)
    Changed block tracking is enabled
    Queued for processing at 11/10/2018 6:09:22 AM
    Required backup infrastructure resources have been assigned
    Creating storage snapshot 00:00
    Processing kv-9450-vm05-3PAR2 02:24
    Processing kv-9450-vm08-3PAR2 02:16
    Processing kv-8200-vm01-3PAR1 00:41
    Processing kv-8200-vm03-3PAR1 02:19
    Processing kv-9450-vm00-3PAR2 02:18
    Processing kv-9450-vm07-3PAR2 02:19
    Processing kv-8200-vm06-3PAR1 02:15
    Processing kv-8200-vm05-3PAR1 02:19
    Processing kv-8200-vm04-3PAR1 02:15
    Processing kv-9450-vm01-3PAR2 02:15
    Processing kv-8200-vm08-3PAR1 02:19
    Processing kv-9450-vm03-3PAR2 02:15
    Processing kv-8200-vm09-3PAR1 02:19
    Processing kv-9450-vm02-3PAR2 02:15
    Processing kv-8200-vm07-3PAR1 02:15
    Processing kv-9450-vm04-3PAR2 02:15
    Processing kv-9450-vm06-3PAR2 02:15
    Processing kv-8200-vm02-3PAR1 02:15
    All VMs have been queued for processing
    Deleting storage snapshot 00:00
    Synthetic full backup created successfully [fast clone] 00:35
    Load: Source 50% > Proxy 89% > Network 76% > Target 0%
    Primary bottleneck: Proxy
    Job finished at 11/10/2018 6:14:51 AM
P.S. This week I'm at the HPE Discover Madrid, If you are here then stop by my desk and I'll show it live.

Murigar
Enthusiast
Posts: 29
Liked: 3 times
Joined: Nov 05, 2014 4:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Deduplication Storage as first target OK nowadays?

Post by Murigar » Dec 03, 2018 6:43 pm

evilaedmin wrote:
Nov 24, 2018 9:46 pm
What are your thoughts on ReFS block clone powered synthetic fulls? Our SE has strongly suggested that this feature is more desirable than dedupe capabilities, especially since in a dedupe-powered synthetic full will have to do a full read/rehydrate/write/dehydrate cycle.
You are of course correct that on any dedup data will likely be painfully slow to restore.
In my above described model. For example.
The primary array on REFS may hold say... 5-7 days of backup data ready for a faster recovery.
This would certainly be a good use case for REFS block clone synthetic fulls.

The secondary on site and off site dedup arrays would hold a longer retention. (Up to disk capacity or as required 30 days maybe.)
While the dedup data is certainly more "time costly" to access you very likely will not be conducting a full or large restore from this data set.

Without knowing your data set or retention requirements I can only speak for what works for me.
For primary storage, if you can get a correctly sized single array and maintain your retention in primary REFS file system that would work very well.
For any "Backup Copy" or off site data I don't see an advantage to REFS unless I am missing something. (As block cloning only takes place within one volume.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests