Storage for On-site Backups
-
@dafyre @scottalanmiller Ha! As I was typing my above message, I was thinking just that!
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason. Caveat: I haven't ran numbers to determine what my capacity needs are at the moment. If the hyper visor that's running the Backup VM simply doesn't have the capacity to store the backups, methinks you'd have to bring on another device.
It would greatly simplify things to make sure your backup server has the storage capacity to handle a VM and the Backup data.
-
@dafyre said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason. Caveat: I haven't ran numbers to determine what my capacity needs are at the moment. If the hyper visor that's running the Backup VM simply doesn't have the capacity to store the backups, methinks you'd have to bring on another device.
It would greatly simplify things to make sure your backup server has the storage capacity to handle a VM and the Backup data.
That makes sense. The data from the various backup agents, flows over the network to the Backup VM, which would have two VHDs attached, one for the VM and its software, the other for the stored backup data. Rather than data from the backup agents flowing over the network to the VM, when then sends data over the network to the storage (either block from iscsi or a file share).
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@dafyre said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason. Caveat: I haven't ran numbers to determine what my capacity needs are at the moment. If the hyper visor that's running the Backup VM simply doesn't have the capacity to store the backups, methinks you'd have to bring on another device.
It would greatly simplify things to make sure your backup server has the storage capacity to handle a VM and the Backup data.
That makes sense. The data from the various backup agents, flows over the network to the Backup VM, which would have two VHDs attached, one for the VM and its software, the other for the stored backup data. Rather than data from the backup agents flowing over the network to the VM, when then sends data over the network to the storage (either block from iscsi or a file share).
And it is one fewer operating systems to store, patch, and maintain.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
If the hyper visor that's running the Backup VM simply doesn't have the capacity to store the backups, methinks you'd have to bring on another device.
Right... but the same thing would be said if your storage target wasn't big enough. Bottom line, whether buying one server or two for this task, you have to size them properly.
By your logic, you could buy hundreds of servers... because none was big enough.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Let's say Server A has 1 TB of storage available to it form its physically connected hard drives. You're running various VMs on Server A, including a backup VM. Let's say the amount of data that needs to be backed up from the other VMs exceeds the amount of storage that's allocated to the backup VM on Server A. You have server B with 5 TB of storage available. You can have the Backup VM from Server A connect to a file share on Server B to store the backup data that wouldn't otherwise fit; thus, using remote storage (presented by server B) to give the backup VM more storage.
Now in the last 10 minutes, it's been established that this isn't how you'd handle the storage design, as it would make more sense for me to just use Server B to have the VM with the backup software along with plenty of storage.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Because adding a cable doesn't increase capacity.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@dafyre said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason. Caveat: I haven't ran numbers to determine what my capacity needs are at the moment. If the hyper visor that's running the Backup VM simply doesn't have the capacity to store the backups, methinks you'd have to bring on another device.
It would greatly simplify things to make sure your backup server has the storage capacity to handle a VM and the Backup data.
That makes sense. The data from the various backup agents, flows over the network to the Backup VM, which would have two VHDs attached, one for the VM and its software, the other for the stored backup data. Rather than data from the backup agents flowing over the network to the VM, when then sends data over the network to the storage (either block from iscsi or a file share).
And it is one fewer operating systems to store, patch, and maintain.
True. Thinking through this further, if someone used an appliance for backup, this is the how the basic design would be. Appliance is its own server, running its own software, storing stuff on its own storage, and just pulling data from the agents over the network.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Let's say Server A has 1 TB of storage available to it form its physically connected hard drives. You're running various VMs on Server A, including a backup VM. Let's say the amount of data that needs to be backed up from the other VMs exceeds the amount of storage that's allocated to the backup VM on Server A. You have server B with 5 TB of storage available. You can have the Backup VM from Server A connect to a file share on Server B to store the backup data that wouldn't otherwise fit; thus, using remote storage (presented by server B) to give the backup VM more storage.
Then you'd just make B your backup server instead of A. Why is A involved if it serves no purpose?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Because adding a cable doesn't increase capacity.
I agree. I don't believe I argued that adding a cable adds capacity.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Let's say Server A has 1 TB of storage available to it form its physically connected hard drives. You're running various VMs on Server A, including a backup VM. Let's say the amount of data that needs to be backed up from the other VMs exceeds the amount of storage that's allocated to the backup VM on Server A. You have server B with 5 TB of storage available. You can have the Backup VM from Server A connect to a file share on Server B to store the backup data that wouldn't otherwise fit; thus, using remote storage (presented by server B) to give the backup VM more storage.
Then you'd just make B your backup server instead of A. Why is A involved if it serves no purpose?
Exactly. That's what was the result of this thread's brainstorming and though experiment :).
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage for On-site Backups:
Why store to ANOTHER machine? Why not store locally to the backup server?
I imagine storage capacity would be one reason.
That doesn't logically make sense. How could the storage capacity be increase by changing local to remote? Distance of cabling doesn't increase storage capacity.
Why not?
Because adding a cable doesn't increase capacity.
I agree. I don't believe I argued that adding a cable adds capacity.
Well, sort of. Where does the added capacity come from if not the cable? Because the only thing you are doing is making the local storage on the backup target remote to you, nothing else. So the cable is the only difference.
-
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
-
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
I was wondering this as well.
-
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
Other than clearly being an idiot and not fully thinking something through before creating a thread to use a medium for thinking something through, I was seeing a separation between the software managing the backup and its storage location, which doesn't make any sense, but if you were curious as to how I could've come up with the idea in the first place; then . . .
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
Other than clearly being an idiot and not fully thinking something through before creating a thread to use a medium for thinking something through, I was seeing a separation between the software managing the backup and its storage location, which doesn't make any sense, but if you were curious as to how I could've come up with the idea in the first place; then . . .
I run Veeam on a desktop in the storage is on the NAS. But the Veeam server does not actually move any data itself the hypervisor agent moves it direct from the hypervisor to the NAS
-
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
Other than clearly being an idiot and not fully thinking something through before creating a thread to use a medium for thinking something through, I was seeing a separation between the software managing the backup and its storage location, which doesn't make any sense, but if you were curious as to how I could've come up with the idea in the first place; then . . .
I run Veeam on a desktop in the storage is on the NAS. But the Veeam server does not actually move any data itself the hypervisor agent moves it direct from the hypervisor to the NAS
I see. That's far more efficient and safer than the individual agents sending the data to the Veeam server, then the Veeam server sends it to the NAS.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
@jaredbusch said in Storage for On-site Backups:
WTF. Why the hell would you even think of running a back up server on the same server you’re backing up how is that even logically comprehensible
Other than clearly being an idiot and not fully thinking something through before creating a thread to use a medium for thinking something through, I was seeing a separation between the software managing the backup and its storage location, which doesn't make any sense, but if you were curious as to how I could've come up with the idea in the first place; then . . .
They can be separate, but normally only in cases where you are so large that you have many backup targets so one backup controller talks to lots of storage systems. When it is one to one, you want them together.
-
@eddiejennings said in Storage for On-site Backups:
This is related to my thread about redesigning from an over-engineered environment. I figure this was a topic worth its own discussion.
Here's the idea. You run a VM that has Veeam or Unitrends or some other backup software (the Backup VM). The data collected by that software needs to be stored somewhere. For my situation, I'd have another physical server (hypervisor with single VM) that would be providing storage for these backups.
It looks like there are two ways I can present this storage to the Backup VM. One way is to create an NFS, SMB, etc. file share. The other is to have the server (probably with iSCSI) present block storage to the Backup VM. What do you folks think are the pros / cons of either approach, or is there a better approach that I'm not considering / am aware of?
I didn't read any other comments yet, but what I've done is simply attached a DAS to the physical server where the backup server exists, where possible.
Otherwise, unless you can get a direct 1gb or 10gb network connection, backup times will suck.
