@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).

Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.

I believe, Yes.

For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of Mind

That's never how you should look at it.

For business: Whatever makes the money
IT: Whatever is good for the business

Maybe I was wrong at "For IT: Peace of Mind"

As I said, our end-users depends a lot on File Server. If File Server is not available, they can't do their work almost (lets say 70%). So if they don't do work for long, their projects will get delayed, and for sure it will effect production.

By the way, I was not aware that Microsoft server license for second server is required.

So, following will be new expenses, if I plan :

1. New server (for second one)
2. Veeam (or any software)
3. Microsoft server license

Am I correct ?

Of course, my time to learn, test and implement

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).

Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.

I believe, Yes.

For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of Mind

Thought to clarify few things :

1. Yes, currently we have one physical server. Second server, Veeam (or whatever) needs to purchase for this replication process.
2. About users, we have 110+ who depends on File Server.
3. Even if it's expensive, I just wanted to propose to my management, it's different thing, if they don't accept it. At least, I will not get blamed for long downtime (if it happens), because I proposed, they didn't accepted it, so their problem

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).

Go back and decide if you need redundancy from a business point of view.

I believe, Yes.

For Management : Minimized Downtime
For IT : Peace of Mind

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

Honestly, IMO, from what little we know of the OP's environment, he does not need replication either. Just a single server and a backup.

I see.

Actually I have inquired with our management people about the "acceptable downtime for server", they said "one day" is okay. Here according to management (aka user) is meant for File Server and as you know, they are not aware of what DC, DNS etc. are.

Most of our production work depends on File Server, and based on above info. acceptable downtime for File Server will one day.

And for any hardware failure, the repair service will be next working day. The vendor from whom we have warranty tie up are working 5 days a week and we are working 6 days a week. If any failure happens at last working day on the week and spare part is not available immediately with them, we may consider around "3 days downtime for server to come up"

And you know, how the situation of IT guyz in this process.

"So I am thinking of Server Redundancy, for company benefit" and of course "to have piece of mind for myself "

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.

Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.

Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.

Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.

Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.

I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.

But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.

I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)

I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.

That's exactly I was looking, easier and more featured.

How about you said "increasing complexity" ?

You hare adding pieces. By definition, that is adding complexity. You now have to update Veeam in addition to Hyper-V. Veeam installs components on the Hyper-V servers, so there is a new fail point. I have never seen this fail, but it certainly can happen.

I see.

What if I planned to get Veeam for VMs Backup on Hyper-V. So, Veeam is already installed for Backup purpose, what if I use if for Replication also ?

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

I would not buy Veeam for backup as my first choice for Hyper-V if you have less than 1TB of data to backup though.

Well assuming that Unitrends still offers 1TB for free.

Yeah, I am aware of free 1TB by unitrends.

Well, we are not eligible for that as we have more than that data.

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.

Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.

Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.

Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.

Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.

I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.

But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.

I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)

I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.

That's exactly I was looking, easier and more featured.

How about you said "increasing complexity" ?

@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.

Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.

Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.

Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.

Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.

I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.

But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.

I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

Okay. Let's say our server is on VM and using Veeam B&R Replica for replicating the VM. Whether the other VM to which we are replicating is Live or Powered Off ?

What should we do at the time Main Server failure to utilize secondary server ?

Replication always means "powered off." You need VMware's Fault Tolerance for a powered on system. Powered On only works when memory is kept in sync, which no one but VMware can do today.

I see. So as we are going with Hyper-V, because it's free, the replicated VM will be Powered Off and we need to Power it ON at the time failure ? or this third party tools like Veeam B&R, Starwind VSAN will trigger automatically ?

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

1. Hyper V Replica : I know it's poor man's DC. So there should some limitations or hard work as it comes for free. For me, redundancy matters and ok with Veeam pricing.

Why, if hard work is okay, would you do this instead of real high availability with Starwind?

@kooler

No idea about Starwind HA. I will chat with Sales guy soon to understand the things...

It's free. And provides for true HA. No data loss in a failover.

Wow. Let me echo what I understand :

1. We have two physical servers (Server A and Server B )
2. Both servers (A and B ) running Hyper-V virtualization
3. Server A is having main Windows Server VM and trying to replicate with Other VM on Server B
4. So here I can use, Free VSAN from Starwind

Am I correct ?

Okay. Let's say our server is on VM and using Veeam B&R Replica for replicating the VM. Whether the other VM to which we are replicating is Live or Powered Off ?

What should we do at the time Main Server failure to utilize secondary server ?

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

c) How it's going to work as Backup ? as it's replicating with all changes at the same time (like mirroring) ? Is that because of restore point or versioning of replica ?

It is not. Replicants are never backups. You still need backups as usual.

Okay, agreed that there is no Backup in this Replication option by Veeam. Even if it exists, I still consider Backup.

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

1. Hyper V Replica : I know it's poor man's DC. So there should some limitations or hard work as it comes for free. For me, redundancy matters and ok with Veeam pricing.

Why, if hard work is okay, would you do this instead of real high availability with Starwind?

@kooler

No idea about Starwind HA. I will chat with Sales guy soon to understand the things...

@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:

You should never run a physical server. I can't tell if you are saying that you are, or just mentioning where your VMs are running.

Yes, we are on Physical Server. I understand how good to be with VMs in the view of Backup and Disaster recovery options.

This is the environment I got here when I joined to this company, and planning for Virtual environment. So prior to implementing, I am learning and researching.....and of course, discussing here

Hi all,

This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).

Part 1: Physical Server

Currently our DC + File Server is running on one Physical Server. Is there any option at all for physical server replication ? with other server, so that we can make second server as primary manually or automatically in case of main server failure ?

Part 2: Virtual Server

I believe, physical server replication is not available and VM Replica is the best option.

Now I am trying to understand Hyper V Free Replica VS Veeam Replica Paid:

1. Hyper V Replica : I know it's poor man's DC. So there should some limitations or hard work as it comes for free. For me, redundancy matters and ok with Veeam pricing.

2. Hyper V Failover Cluster : As it will require two virtual servers (of course best option to be on different servers), so two physical servers and SAN/NAS, which is out of budget (not an option for me) and I know don't understand how it's redundant incase of SAN failure ?

3. Veeam B&R Replica Standard : I have chosen standard (perpetual) , as it's ok for pricing and features. Here my confusion is, as it's saying Backup and Replication, for the Backup if we set backup target to NAS, it's fine,

a) But for replication we should set target to Physical Server ? which is with Hyper-V, so that we can Fire UP to make it as primary server in case of Actual Server failure, right ? I believe everything will be up and runs normally within some 30 minutes with around 1 hour data loss (let's say) ?

b) Once the main (original) server is okay and ready to run again (from failure), how about changed/updated data with secondary server ?( which was acting as primary server), whether Veeam software will update back ?

c) How it's going to work as Backup ? as it's replicating with all changes at the same time (like mirroring) ? Is that because of restore point or versioning of replica ?

Thanks for your time !!

@Dashrender said in CentOS 7 File Server (samba). Do you know easy GUI to manage ?:

@scottalanmiller said in CentOS 7 File Server (samba). Do you know easy GUI to manage ?:

Why do you want a GUI? What's the end goal?

I'm guessing his goal is to not have to learn CLI commands.

Kinda

@aaronstuder said in CentOS 7 File Server (samba). Do you know easy GUI to manage ?:

Webmin
http://webmin.com/

http://doxfer.webmin.com/Webmin/Samba_Windows_File_Sharing

I am aware of Webmin, but for now, I just need for File Server...

@scottalanmiller said in CentOS 7 File Server (samba). Do you know easy GUI to manage ?:

I'm not aware of one, it's not considered good practice to have a GUI on a server, so the very existence of such a tool suggests that it is not a good one (like FreeNAS.) It's difficult to have a truly good product in a bad idea category.

Why do you want a GUI? What's the end goal?

For easier management like creating shared folders, giving permissions etc. instead of doing it from CLI, as I am not that much good at CLI.

Hi All,

I required to run a file server to have IT stuff, ISO files repository for XenServer and few other requirements.

So, I was thinking of FreeNAS vs CentOS Samba server, I believe IT pros around here will suggest CentOS option, so I have shortlisted to CentOS.

This CentOS server is going to be run on XS 7.

Now, I am for GUI package to setup on CentOS 7 to manage easily, do you know one which is easier and stable ? I am not willing to play with Terminal as of now.

I know Webmin, not used much, I know it have Samba things to manage, but I was thinking of only File Server manager.

Thanks for suggestions