Replication Options for KVM to DR Site
-
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
@EddieJennings said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
On-High where I am is having us look at Zerto.
It's not a business tool. It's officially unsupported and puts your VMware installation at risk. If you use Zerto, you dont' believe in VMware. It is strongly advised officially to never, ever consider.
I think it's being considering for our Hyper-V environment, which is what's used for our Citrix stuff. It's not something within my sphere of influence.
-
@EddieJennings said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
I think it's being considering for our Hyper-V environment, which is what's used for our Citrix stuff. It's not something within my sphere of influence.
No idea what it does there, but you'd think you'd want backups to be from a reliable vendor of all things.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
That's my point. Losing the backups as well. Backups still don't protect from everything. Not when you lose whole regions. There are events that take out your backups as well, even if they are stored in another country, for example.
OK, lets go to the extremes, the planet gets hit by a dinosaur killing meteorite, we all go into a new ice age and die. DR becomes a non-issue. I thought I already mentioned the level-of-paranoia variable. IF you want to protect yourself from such an event - invest in sending backups to Mars and storing them there. But really, I thought we were having a meaningful conversation here, not a post apocalyptic scifi con
-
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
It's not a business tool. It's officially unsupported and puts your VMware installation at risk. If you use Zerto, you dont' believe in VMware. It is strongly advised officially to never, ever consider.
If you use it, you voluntarily suspend any support guarantees from everyone. It breaches every possible support position. Not that Vmware would use that as an excuse to not support you, VMware isn't like that, but any legal responsibility that you've paid for them to have is completely gone.
Is that an official documented vmware policy? I wouldn't be surprised of course, they are horrible at actually being able to cope with competition, hence all the restrictions on benchmarking and comparisons.
I'm not a fan of Zerto (for my own reasons, I wouldn't go near them, ever), but if vmware are basically selling you a product and then refuse to support it (even if support has been paid for) because you use an ISV for added functionality instead of paying for their own add-on, that's just ugly of them. Another reason to run away to other vendors, IMO.
-
@dyasny said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
Is that an official documented vmware policy? I wouldn't be surprised of course, they are horrible at actually being able to cope with competition, hence all the restrictions on benchmarking and comparisons.
Yes, it is codified in their API documents. Zerto uses a kernel hook that is unofficial, unstable, and not supported. So it can cause any number of problems and anything that uses it is in violation of the support agreement.
-
@dyasny said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
I'm not a fan of Zerto (for my own reasons, I wouldn't go near them, ever), but if vmware are basically selling you a product and then refuse to support it (even if support has been paid for) because you use an ISV for added functionality instead of paying for their own add-on, that's just ugly of them.
You can use any other vendor, just not hat one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
You can use any other vendor, just not hat one.
Wasn't aware of that, anywhere I can read about it (and maybe zerto's response as well)
-
@dyasny said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
That's my point. Losing the backups as well. Backups still don't protect from everything. Not when you lose whole regions. There are events that take out your backups as well, even if they are stored in another country, for example.
OK, lets go to the extremes, the planet gets hit by a dinosaur killing meteorite, we all go into a new ice age and die. DR becomes a non-issue. I thought I already mentioned the level-of-paranoia variable. IF you want to protect yourself from such an event - invest in sending backups to Mars and storing them there. But really, I thought we were having a meaningful conversation here, not a post apocalyptic scifi con
But that was my point, what's considered a reasonable, rational risk scenario to an invest bank sounds to normal people to be similar to meteor level extinction events. Hence why the "backups have to cover everything possible" rule can't work, even if you add the caveat of "within rational scope", it is clear that Fortune 100 rational is SMB crazy. And what is F100 crazy, is still Wall St. rational. And what is Wall St crazy, is big government rational.
Backups shouldn't stop being backups based on the impression of rational scope. A backup is a backup, the scope that it covers is its coverage scope. Otherwise no SMB's backups would be a backup to the enterprise, for example. But the viewpoint of the observer should not be the determination of what is or isn't a backup, but rather an intrinsic property of the backup itself. Otherwise, you force a crazy scope to happen and someone mentions meteors - which was my point.
-
@dyasny said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
You can use any other vendor, just not hat one.
Wasn't aware of that, anywhere I can read about it (and maybe zerto's response as well)
AFAIK it's just in the software docs and Zerto ignores it because it is not in their interest to admit it, and Vmware doesn't bring it up because Zerto helps to sell VMware products so they mostly look the other way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Replication Options for KVM to DR Site:
But that was my point, what's considered a reasonable, rational risk scenario to an invest bank sounds to normal people to be similar to meteor level extinction events. Hence why the "backups have to cover everything possible" rule can't work, even if you add the caveat of "within rational scope", it is clear that Fortune 100 rational is SMB crazy. And what is F100 crazy, is still Wall St. rational. And what is Wall St crazy, is big government rational.
Backups shouldn't stop being backups based on the impression of rational scope. A backup is a backup, the scope that it covers is its coverage scope. Otherwise no SMB's backups would be a backup to the enterprise, for example. But the viewpoint of the observer should not be the determination of what is or isn't a backup, but rather an intrinsic property of the backup itself. Otherwise, you force a crazy scope to happen and someone mentions meteors - which was my point.
Lets agree on DR solutions being able (or striving to at least) cover disasters of whatever the scoped level is for a given business. With this in mind, avoidance techniques still have to target specific errors, while recovery solutions cover data loss from all of those, plus any other failure (within the scope, yes. Nothing will cover the failure of Earth remaining a livable planet).
