Backup solutions for XCP-ng

olivierlambert

@cg This forum is not focused on XOA sales, it's a community forum where people (at Vates but not exclusively) help others for free when they can on any XO version (source or paid). Same for XCP-ng. And my proof is all other topics this years here.

Our official doc is also listing alternative backup solutions. So no, don't try to imply this too, this is simply false

You can't just pop in there and tell there's no powerful solution to backup XCP-ng in general, which is dishonest. If it doesn't fit your use case it's something very different, and we are always happy to spend some time to learn about what feature is missing, that's how we built XOA and XCP-ng from the start.

cg

@olivierlambert said in Backup solutions for XCP-ng:

@cg This forum is not focused on XOA sales, it's a community forum where people (at Vates but not exclusively) help others for free when they can on any XO version (source or paid). Same for XCP-ng. And my proof is all other topics this years here.

Our official doc is also listing alternative backup solutions. So no, don't try to imply this too, this is simply false

It's more a "partner page". It's missing a feature matrix, something like you did with VMware. Also there are more solutions like Unitrends, Alike and SEP - probably a few more, I don't know of. SEP also supports dedup and is application aware of (MS) SQL and Exchange - at least at the point I was evaluating a new solution. Though I had a massive performance issue and didn't get support to find the reason.

You can't just pop in there and tell there's no powerful solution to backup XCP-ng in general, which is dishonest. If it doesn't fit your use case it's something very different, and we are always happy to spend some time to learn about what feature is missing, that's how we built XOA and XCP-ng from the start.

I would say: Of course I can and I'm right, but I'm fine if we agree on: We have different levels of expectations about the features a solutions needs.
If something isn't very powerful, it doesn't mean it's bad or doesn't fit for anyone.
My usecase is a common one, but there are many you don't hear from, because they don't even seriously consider moving away from VMware, which is pretty much the standard in my type of environment.

I'll move to PM as this pretty much didn't go to a "discuss backup solutons for XCP-ng", instead a very specific thread about my (and collegues) expectations and your POV.

olivierlambert

It's fine to discuss your requirements here, this way others could interact and also upvote your needed features. That's how open source is working

If you want to discuss financing features specifically, this is also possible. To do that, you can contact us directly via a contact form on https://vates.fr

cg

@olivierlambert
Okay, so bascially what I (and other people, I know, who are in a similar environment) need:

Tape backup is mandatory, as we're talking about (deduplicated, compressed) dozens of TB
Deduplication and good compression: duplicated, uncompressed ends in PB
All of that needs to scale! E.g. Commvault scales on 16 threads here even with only 1 - 2 tasks. (Can't say if even more without upgrade of CPU)
(We need chains, of course, to go B2D2T -> dumping the dedup-store on tape as disaster recovery)
Applicationawareness (which can be done via agent - agentless is not always king or very important):
-- MS Exchange, recovering datastores, mailboxes and even single mail items
-- SQL Servers: MS SQL, MySQL (MariaDB)...
-- Windows Active Directory Items

Over here I also need to have the option to do backups only inside the VM via agent, as I can't snapshot them.
You might have gotton me wrong: AFAIK quiesced backups always made a VM snapshot and submitted the request also to the VSS writer and then the VM/VHDs have been "read". In this case it will always fail, as there's no space on storage for such. Also Citrix discontinued that in their VM tools! XCP-ng yet lacks a proper tool maintenance with corresponding releases, which would be the only chance to keep that.

As an idea for XOA:

Make it run on physical hardware, as VMs are too small for such
You already cooperate with HPE - let them run bare metal on ProLiants!
ZFS(oL) Could be your way to go to implement dedup and compression

...feel free to add, comment... whatever.

olivierlambert

Thanks for your suggestions. Most of them are already taken into account

florent

@cg hi, I am working on the backups , and I can add some precisions

compression is already on (first on S3, but now for all backups remotes) with the new vhd storage system, using brotli compression by default ( gzip possible , but it's slower and less efficient) . Compression level can be configured
deduplicaton is in our backlog
backups can be processed in parallel, and with the new vhd storage vhd blocks are uploaded in parallel ( default 8, can be configured)
delta backup merging is done in parallel ( 2 by default, can be configured)
we 're working on using network block device server to be able to read the data in parallel from the host, with the goal of speeding up backups and offloading DOM0

Forza

@florent great info. Is there some metrics on how long merging operations take? This would be helpful to avoid bottlenecks.

florent

@Forza
We're currently creating a lab that will allow us to make benchmark more easily. The latest version of the merging operation only do a block renaming + deletion of unused block (blocks are 2MB , not configurable for now), no data copy, thus no data transfer between the remote and XO.
It is faster on performant backend, but we still have some fine tuning to do to ensure we don't overload slower backend. In the meantime we put some very conservatives settings.

backup tiering and backup immutability are also in the work. I don't have a precise ETA, but it's in a few weeks to a few month at most.

theses features will pave the way for backup to tape

cg

@florent IIRC OpenZFS 2 uses zstd and/or lz4 as efficient algorythms, which do a pretty good job. Yet I only know brotli from webservers.

How do you connect the tape, if it's virtualized?
Putting it on bare metal would also target that (aside of performance benefits and falling restrictions on backup size due to VHD limits).

olivierlambert

The problem of bare metal is to provide the appliance. As you can imagine, it's a very different business to distribute hardware appliances than a virtual one (stock management, spare parts, hardware support, shipping and so on).

cg

@olivierlambert Sure it is a different thing, that's why I recommended using your connections to HPE to offer a bundle or at least to offer a version, that runs with a (more or less specific) version of one of their servers. As it only makes sense when the environment reaches a certain point, it would make sense to pick a DL380/385 series/generation, which offer a good bandwith of performance and space.
E.g. we use a DL385 with 10x 10 TB HDD + a few SSDs for cache and database.

IMHO it's okay to say: We support bare metal on platform X. Lots of configurations options don't matter for your support, as more memory, bigger CPUs or more storage behind the same controller don't touch the needed drivers/evaluations.

olivierlambert

It's more complicated than that. We need then to have a way to install the exact environment we need to have decent QA on it. So it's more like building an installer for it (which is not immensely complex but MORE work, since the installer should be written but also maintained).

I'm pretty convinced about the perf level of using it on a physical machine, it's just that everything around is more complex to deliver.

mjtbrady

@florent How can the level of compression and parallelisms be set?

Thanks

florent

@cg we are envisaging various way, from using iSCSI to access tape from the VM, to using an agent on the tape (but here we'll have to support physical hardware patching , updating ) . There is also a lot of work to ensure we write sequentially without concurrency and to make it work with the futur dedup and to keep a catalog of backups / tapes

@mjtbrady my bad it is set as zlib.constants.BROTLI_MIN_QUALITY for now. Since I called it , I can add the param if you want to help me test it . Is it ok for you ?

upload concurrency is in writeBlockConcurrency
merge concurrency is maxMergedDeltasPerRun
Compression type can be set in the config.toml, vhdDirectoryCompression

cg

@florent said in Backup solutions for XCP-ng:

@cg we are envisaging various way, from using iSCSI to access tape from the VM, to using an agent on the tape (but here we'll have to support physical hardware patching , updating ) . There is also a lot of work to ensure we write sequentially without concurrency and to make it work with the futur dedup and to keep a catalog of backups / tapes

I don't know every product, but yet I've never seen a Tapedrive/Library using iSCSI.
iSCSI is usually only used by storage systems, not by devices or libraries.
Common interfaces are either SAS or - especially in larger environments - Fiberchannel. So your way to go, probably, is to passthrough an HBA.

Forza

@cg said in Backup solutions for XCP-ng:

I don't know every product, but yet I've never seen a Tapedrive/Library using iSCSI.

iSCSI, at least with Linux's LIO subsystem, can pass through SCSI devices (PSCSI, not the block device, though I have seen some warnings about that. I guess the initiator has to understand the target's device model specific commands properly.

I actually haven't tested this myself, so I don't know how well it works.

http://www.linux-iscsi.org/wiki/LIO#Backstores

Edit: found this article of doing something like that https://www.kraftkennedy.com/virtualizing-scsi-tape-drives-with-an-iscsi-bridge/

florent

@cg We're still in the early phase, but it seems possible to connect the tape loader to a host, and to let the host expose it. Passthrough will means that Xo's host is directly connected, which is not always the case

Backup to tape is quite different than backuping on disk, S3 or even glacier, I am confident that it will be possible, and we will communicate as soon as we have a working copy.

mjtbrady

@florent Happy to do what I can to test this.

In my xo-server config.toml I see writeBlockConcurrency, maxMergedDeltasPerRun and vhdDirectoryCompression in a [backups] section.

Does this mean that these setting are system wide?

Shouldn't these be configurable on a per Remote basis?

Also in a previous post you have indicated that writeBlockConcurrency defaults to 8, but my xo-server config.toml it is 16.

florent

@mjtbrady For now these settings are globals. Yes it's 16 by default , I was misled by my non default test installation

cg

I've set up a test-environment and indeed it worked. Commvault was (is?) checking for specific version/agent string when connecting to XS/CHV/XCP-ng and in older versions refused to connect to XCP-ng.

I successfully installed the agent on a proxy-vm (it uses a proxy to ro-mount the VM-VHDs and backup the content), connected the pool, delivered the VM-inventory and also ran a successful backup:

In other words: If you're using Commvault (11.28+) you're not any longer locked on Citrix.