I agree that I don't believe it's your infrastructure. I can write data at up to 800-900MB/sec to a 3PAR Volume presented to my Veeam Proxy which is a Windows 2012 R2 Server on the same model HP Blade Server, and in the same blade enclosure, as my ESXi hosts, but a Veeam SAN Restore is not even a tenth of that speed.
I have a very similar setup to you. 2 x HP c7000 Blade Chassis, each with 2 x FlexFabric 10Gb/24-Port Modules (used to use it for Direct-Attach to the 3PAR for a flat SAN but now just use it for 10GbE Ethernet to our Cisco 6880 Core Switch) and 2 x HP 8Gb 20-Port Fibre Channel Modules that connect to 2 x HP CN3000B 16Gb Fibre Switches (rebadged Brocade Switches). The 3PAR 7400 (4-Node) has an 8Gb FC connection from each controller to each of the two fibre switches. All up each ProLiant BL460c Gen8 Blade sees 8 paths to the 3PAR.
SAN backups work great, very fast (an Active Backup can run over 400-500MB/sec+ if there is no other activity). Network restores are quick at over 140-150MB/sec+ ... however SAN restores are down to 40-50MB/sec. I tested again this morning with a new thin provisioned volume and also a thick provisioned volume using a VBK that was on the local 300GB SAS drives on one of Gen8 Blades that acts as a Veeam Proxy (to take the Veeam Repository out of the equation for speed tests) and got the same results no matter whether the 3PAR volume was thick or thin.
Definitely something going on.
I'll open a case with Veeam ... i'm dreading explaining this issue and the many, many tests that have been done. But fingers crossed.
chjones wrote:Veeam have now opened a case with VMware, as they see the same results internally, and I've given them permission to hand over my details to VMware if they wish to contact me regarding the issue. Fingers crossed.
Vitaliy S. wrote:Hi Dmitri,
Can you please give us a bit more details on our setup? What disks were you restoring? What was the connection and what performance rates you had?
Vitaliy S. wrote:What about using hotadd mode for restoring the entire VM image? If you have a virtual proxy server, then you can run a restore job through it and then compare the restore job performance.
dmitri-va wrote:So, do I understand this correct that the slower direct san restores issue is due to VMs being restored as thick lazy zeroed, no matter what the original disk was and that this is vmware limitation?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests