All of the above facts result in significantly increased TCO of object storage based solution, comparing to general purpose storage on classic file systems. Finally, object storage does not provide self-contained files, thus significantly complicating data migration, synchronization, recovery, transportation, export, tape archival – which are all very important backup data management tasks. However, object storage requires more expertise to manage (comparing to classic file systems), and is less reliable (new technology, comparing to polished general-purpose file system). Regarding the "highly economical" part, the math is really easy: data ends up on the same hard drives having the same price tag. If others would like to see this implemented in Veeam future, please reply to this thread, and hopefully Gostev will work his magic.ĭougsoltesz wrote: storage is highly economical and perfect for a backup target.Īctually, neither of these statement are true, at least from my experience. However, seeing as Veeam reads 256KB to 2MB chunks of data from VMware CBT, I'm sure that the brilliant developers at Veeam can figure out a way to store these objects and use a database or object manafest to tie all the pieces back to together. I also understand that Veeam today writes a large file, and object storage is more tuned to many smaller objects. This storage is highly economical and perfect for a backup target. However, my company and I'm sure many others are implementing private cloud (onsite) object storage systems as data is increasing expodentialy. I am aware that Veeam v7 had the Cloud Edition, which had a way to send Veeam images to the Cloud, and that Veeam v8 has Cloud Connect enabling cloud backup to select partners. I would like to propose that Veeam look into supporting OpenStack Swift and S3 as a Backup Repository type for a future version of Veeam. I am very happy to see that in v8 Veeam is continuing to add new Backup Repository types (Deduplicating Storage Appliance).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |