Host-based backup of VMware vSphere VMs.
Post Reply
Giacomo_N
Enthusiast
Posts: 92
Liked: 16 times
Joined: Feb 15, 2013 1:56 pm
Full Name: Giacomo
Location: Italy
Contact:

Virtual appliance transport

Post by Giacomo_N »

Hi guys, tomorrow we'll begin the migrate from Nutanix to VXrail (Vsan).
Actually we used Direct access by NFS, but on Vsan enviroment we need to switch on Virtual appliance transport mode.
For the best performance, the esxi IP must be on the same network of Veeam server (without routing between) or nothing matters?

Thanks in advance!
Andreas Neufert
VP, Product Management
Posts: 6707
Liked: 1401 times
Joined: May 04, 2011 8:36 am
Full Name: Andreas Neufert
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Andreas Neufert » 1 person likes this post

There is nothing really special to plan for other than installing the proxies on VMs on the cluster and use the same SCSI adapters in the VM as your workload VMs have. (Usually the LSI)

If you want to optimize for performance and optimal dataflow, then add more small Proxies and spread them accross the vSphere cluster as we have a logic for optimal dataflow within vSAN. For example if you install a Proxy (potentially Linux Proxy) on each host and we will choose the optimal patch automatically to reduce east/west traffic within vSAN.

https://helpcenter.veeam.com/docs/backu ... ml?ver=100
Giacomo_N
Enthusiast
Posts: 92
Liked: 16 times
Joined: Feb 15, 2013 1:56 pm
Full Name: Giacomo
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Giacomo_N »

Thank you Andreas for the reply,

ok I'm ready, I can reuse the actual proxy (one per esx host), I've the same Paravirtual controller on all VM's.
Gostev
Chief Product Officer
Posts: 31460
Liked: 6648 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Gostev »

Giacomo_N wrote: Jan 18, 2021 2:40 pmHi guys, tomorrow we'll begin the migrate from Nutanix to VXrail (Vsan)
I'm just curious what prompted you to migrate?
Giacomo_N
Enthusiast
Posts: 92
Liked: 16 times
Joined: Feb 15, 2013 1:56 pm
Full Name: Giacomo
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Giacomo_N » 1 person likes this post

Hi "legendary" Gostev!
The main reason is the performance, after Vsan POC I've verified the claimed "low footprint" storage Vsan (because are integrated on esx kernerl..bla,bla) is true.
Less CPU/host overhead (average 20%) compared to Nutanix CVM and low latency disk access.
Second, Nutanix now are very "Acropolis" oriented compared to five years ago (we bought Nutanix on 2016), we're Vmware oriented.
Third, on Nutanx stretched cluster only 50 Vms are supported on Vmware, actually we've 60 Vms.
Fourth, less hardware customization compared to Vxrail/Dell, we choice 6 hosts with single socket 20 core CPU (Gold 6242R). The same configuration are not possible with Nutanix Hardware, only by partner and support "isn't the same".
Gostev
Chief Product Officer
Posts: 31460
Liked: 6648 times
Joined: Jan 01, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Baar, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Gostev »

Got it, thanks for sharing!
NightBird
Expert
Posts: 242
Liked: 57 times
Joined: Apr 28, 2009 8:33 am
Location: Strasbourg, FRANCE
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by NightBird »

Whouah, Nutanix is limited to 50VM in vSphere Stretched Cluster ???
msteingass
Lurker
Posts: 1
Liked: never
Joined: Dec 04, 2019 1:06 pm
Full Name: Moritz Steingaß
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by msteingass »

In short - no

Theres a limit for the amount of files in a protected datastore and a limit for Protection Domains which are a logical construct for configuring Metro Availability on a container.

I can‘t say exactly for how much VMs that makes but definitely more than 50. Maybe there was a misunderstanding with the Protection Domains.

https://portal.nutanix.com/page/documen ... ity-c.html

I‘m familiar with Nutanix and also curious about the other points. But I don‘t intend to start a discussion. Maybe VxRail just was more fitting in some way.
Matts N
Enthusiast
Posts: 59
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:41 am
Full Name: Matts Nilsson
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Matts N »

Yes, is that correct? Only 50 VM's on a stretched Nutanix VMware cluster??? Would explain a lot of problems we had and to some extent still have at a customer (300+ VM's). The problems were dire enough for us to decide not to sell Nutanix for stretched clusters anymore, only suggest VxRail now.
Matts N
Enthusiast
Posts: 59
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:41 am
Full Name: Matts Nilsson
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Matts N » 1 person likes this post

Had a quick chat with my colleague who works with Nutanix. The 50 VM limitation is per datastore, not for the total cluster.
Giacomo_N
Enthusiast
Posts: 92
Liked: 16 times
Joined: Feb 15, 2013 1:56 pm
Full Name: Giacomo
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Virtual appliance transport

Post by Giacomo_N » 2 people like this post

Hi guys, sorry for my "disinformation", for sure was a limit some years ago, I remember the support confirm me the limit in 2017.

Anyway, Vxrail implemented and I can confirm, using the Moritz words "VxRail just was more fitting in some way".
Very fast and very low host resource footprint. DR procedure, failover and failback, are fast like a single site farm; With Nutanix I've build a procedure during the last 5 years of about 10 pages and required 2 hours.

By Veeam side, Virtual appliance mode, one proxy per host (affinity rule "should") and registry setting to increase the maximum snapshot per datastore, give me a 5X performance compared to old Nutanix (old Nutanix=old Hardware Hybrid HDD/SSD compared to SSD only in Vxrail).
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 74 guests