Offsite Backup Solution Needed
-
@wrx7m said:
Did you ever talk to veeam about why snapshots were crashing your server? Do you have really old/under-powered hardware with super slow hard drives?
Havent talked to them no, its was pretty black and white VM crashed due to resources, delete snapshot and poof it works.
(almost) everything is running off of quick systems, quick SAN's mainly all 15k or SSD
-
@Sparkum 100-200GB per day in changes?
That's a very large Delta if you're trying to replicate those changes off site.
-
@Sparkum I have been using Veeam since version 6.5 and now on version 9. I absolutely love it. I would still take a look at the reason you ran out of resources. It seems really odd that that you would have that problem on newer hardware.
I also have a large file server. About 2 TB is used and with version 9 and vSphere 6, the full backup only takes about 16.25 hours. On version 8 it took twice that long.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Sparkum 100-200GB per day in changes?
That's a very large Delta if you're trying to replicate those changes off site.
yeah do the math
5 Mb/s = 18,000 Mb/hr (2.25 GB/hr) max. It's unlikely that you'll get max use, assuming 80% you looking at being able to send 1.8 GB/hr. Assuming you close at 5 PM and open at 7 AM, that's 14 hours you can transfer at full speed, 1.8 * 14 = 31.5 GB per night.
-
@Dashrender That's also assuming all work halts at 5PM... no last minute changes....
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@Dashrender That's also assuming all work halts at 5PM... no last minute changes....
lol of course LOL
this was of course a best guess type scenario.
-
@Dashrender I really think it's tape or nothing with such a low bandwidth environment.
shrugs
-
So, the main problem here is your WAN connection's bandwidth. There is no chance you can get something better?
-
If you really have 100-200 GB worth of changes a day - there is no way you're replicating that over a 5/5 pipe, just not happening.
With that amount of change, I think you should consider tape and iron mountain. That will probably be your cheapest option.
If you can bump your internet to 50/5 on the server side, and 5/50 on the other side... maybe this would work, but man.. I wouldn't like that.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you really have 100-200 GB worth of changes a day - there is no way you're replicating that over a 5/5 pipe, just not happening.
With that amount of change, I think you should consider tape and iron mountain. That will probably be your cheapest option.
If you can bump your internet to 50/5 on the server side, and 5/50 on the other side... maybe this would work, but man.. I wouldn't like that.
Symmetrical or you're absolutely hosed if you actually need your backups
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
If you really have 100-200 GB worth of changes a day - there is no way you're replicating that over a 5/5 pipe, just not happening.
With that amount of change, I think you should consider tape and iron mountain. That will probably be your cheapest option.
If you can bump your internet to 50/5 on the server side, and 5/50 on the other side... maybe this would work, but man.. I wouldn't like that.
Symmetrical or you're absolutely hosed if you actually need your backups
well it's across town - he already said he'd drive there, and that is why Carbonite was off the table.
-
@Dashrender ah good call, didn't see that.
-
@Dashrender said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@Sparkum 100-200GB per day in changes?
That's a very large Delta if you're trying to replicate those changes off site.
yeah do the math
5 Mb/s = 18,000 Mb/hr (2.25 GB/hr) max. It's unlikely that you'll get max use, assuming 80% you looking at being able to send 1.8 GB/hr. Assuming you close at 5 PM and open at 7 AM, that's 14 hours you can transfer at full speed, 1.8 * 14 = 31.5 GB per night.
Office is 100/100
And ya increasing the line at the store is COMPLETELY an option. Just trying to weigh all my options here.
Additionally I dont need ALL the data replicated everynight.
Certain things like sharepoint, IIS, reportserver, things like that that dont change often could be backed up less often, so long as the data is relevant enough.
-
For ~200GB of changes you're in the butter zone for LTO5/6. Just make sure if you go with 6 you can feed it fast enough as they work best with a full buffer to avoid running out of data mid write.
-
@Sparkum It seems the easiest thing to do would be to upgrade the retail site's wan link. If you aren't already using tape, it seems like you should just stay away from it.
-
@Dashrender If you are using Veeam, then it handles all of it. You can either use VM replication and that does require a hypervisor on the other end. Or you can use backup copy to replicate the backup.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Yeah so there are a few different items being discussed.
Continuous replication is not a backup. It's an Oh-Shit recovery tool, where you are making a ready to boot copy of everything on a separate host.
- this does not sound like what you want
Backups include
- Full Backups - backing up everything VM related
- Incrementals or Delta's - Only the changes since the last backup.
Incrementals are what you appear to want, but then you mention that you'll have a Hypervisor at the remote location.
So are you doing / hoping for a Continuous Replication and Backup scenario where you use two types of recovery?
Replication most certainly is a backup. It is not backup history that you can restore various things from various times. But it most certianly is a copy of your data.
-
@MattSpeller said:
For ~200GB of changes you're in the butter zone for LTO5/6. Just make sure if you go with 6 you can feed it fast enough as they work best with a full buffer to avoid running out of data mid write.
I personally wondering if the ~200GB number I'm coming up with is more how Backup Exec does its backups, looking closely I cant fathem why certain servers have the growth they are showing.
-
@JaredBusch Does replication do any sort of snapshot?
-
@Sparkum said:
@MattSpeller said:
For ~200GB of changes you're in the butter zone for LTO5/6. Just make sure if you go with 6 you can feed it fast enough as they work best with a full buffer to avoid running out of data mid write.
I personally wondering if the ~200GB number I'm coming up with is more how Backup Exec does its backups, looking closely I cant fathem why certain servers have the growth they are showing.
I've had nightmares about trying to use / fix BackupExec that would scare the underpants off a fully grown sysadmin
