PureStorage Plugin - Proxy Requirement

[iamloki]

Hi Guys,

I'm planning to implement the PureStorage plugin with Veeam Backup & Replication to leverage storage snapshots and minimize open snapshots on VMware. For this setup, I have two configuration options in mind:
1. Using a physical server as a Veeam Proxy with a direct FC connection to PureStorage
2. Using a virtual Veeam Proxy VM on ESXi with an FC-iSCSI connection to PureStorage
Which of these configurations is recommended or supported for optimal performance with the PureStorage plugin? Are there any specific considerations or limitations I should be aware of for either approach?"

[rennerstefan]

Hi,

both will work from a Veeam side as we do support both protocols.
But based on expierence I would always pick a physical proxy (your option 1) when using FC as it will aviod the virutalization overhead and usually performs perfectly. Also zoning etc. is very clear when using the phyiscal box.

Thanks

[TDG]

Hi if you are on a new Purity version why not do snapshots on Pure

And protect them using SafeMode
https://community.purestorage.com/commu ... 5e13961904

And using Pure remote plugin you can restore form Pure snapshots etc... using VCSA or the manual way

[rennerstefan]

I would say that it's also about backups of the VMs to store them outside the pure systems to follow the 3-2-1-1-0 rule.
The SafeMode snapshots are a good idea and can already be used in addition to our processing (https://www.veeam.com/blog/pure-storage ... ction.html)

[TDG]

Maybe

something like

https://objectfirst.com/ - If you have $$$
Build your own harden Veeam Linux repository - Think new ISO due in the next VeeamON from Rick Vanover
Pure safe mode snapshots
and send a copy to Wasabi S3

[iamloki]

The primary backup target is Quantum DXi, and the second copy will be offloaded to S3(ActiveScale). So we are not planning to store any backups on PureStorage.

[rennerstefan]

That is what I guessed, backup from storage snapshot via FC to a target for external backups.
May I ask you about your dataset size (used capacity and # of VMs)?

[iamloki]

Hi Stefan

SQL-VM1
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: VM1-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-13 12:47:29 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 20:05:51.873065
• Storage: Total 5.5 TB across 4 disks
FilePrint-VM1
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: FilePrint-VM1-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-13 15:08:20 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 17:45:02.972463
• Storage: Total 5.483 TB across 3 disks
FilePrint-VM2
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: FilePrint-VM2-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-14 14:04:44 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 10:48:42.601395
• Storage: Total 18.878 TB across 7 disks

[logixcom]

We use the plug- in (on physical proxy) and it works very well. We use SafeMode for basic protection from a "malware" type event. Then we use the Veeam plug-in to do our backups of the VMs on a per VM "tag" basis, as it makes VM "stun" time near non-existent, which is huge for critical VMs that we backup every hour. We could do only the snapshots on PURE and then set Veeam to read from them and perform backups, but we like the separation. The only thing that I don't like about the setup is exposing every volume in the Pure to the proxy. I understand why you have to, but to us it seems a bit like a security risk and an opportunity for someone to accidentally or maliciously mount said volumes that otherwise would only be exposed to VMWare. That said, all in all the speeds and minimal disruption to the VMWare environment are worth it in our case.

I would recommend this article from a PURE and VMWare expert... https://www.jdwallace.com/post/pure-fla ... with-veeam and https://www.jdwallace.com/post/flasharr ... with-veeam -- I also used this guide as well https://thevirtualboi.com/2018/06/29/ho ... snapshots/
It offered some more insights that the KB articles from Veeam and PURE didn't explain as clearly.

[rennerstefan]

Not sure what you mean by: "The only thing that I don't like about the setup is exposing every volume in the Pure to the proxy."
We only mount snapshot not the actualy live volume so the risk is very limited and in additon you can even select what volumes we should mount and exclude the ones you don't want us to access...
Can you clarify this part?
Thanks

[rennerstefan]

Hi Stefan

SQL-VM1
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: VM1-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-13 12:47:29 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 20:05:51.873065
• Storage: Total 5.5 TB across 4 disks
FilePrint-VM1
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: FilePrint-VM1-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-13 15:08:20 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 17:45:02.972463
• Storage: Total 5.483 TB across 3 disks
FilePrint-VM2
• Last Full Backup Time Alert: FilePrint-VM2-VEEAM BACKUP TEMPORARY SNAPSHOT-2024-07-14 14:04:44 AEST+1000
• Time Elapsed for backup to be completed was greater than : 10:48:42.601395
• Storage: Total 18.878 TB across 7 disks

With those inde of VMs and sizes I think a physical proxy is best. I guess there will be more than those 3 VMs so hard to tell a real design but seems one good physical proxy should be fine to start with.

[grantsd]

Not sure what you mean by: "The only thing that I don't like about the setup is exposing every volume in the Pure to the proxy."
We only mount snapshot not the actualy live volume so the risk is very limited and in additon you can even select what volumes we should mount and exclude the ones you don't want us to access...
Can you clarify this part?
Thanks

Agree, that person is confusing Direct SAN with Backup from Storage Snapshot integration. The person who wrote the article did an unnecessary step.