Veeam and XCP-ng
-
@planedrop said in Veeam and XCP-ng:
@jasonnix I've done extensive testing with this myself, first and foremost, Veeam is the one that would have to support it, not vice versa.
Second, it would be best to use XO for the backups, it's much more fluid and is fully integrated, I've been doing this for some time and it's been excellent in multiple production setups.
I also have tested using Veeam via agents within the VMs themselves (this was just for test purposes, I'd still not really recommend it) and it worked exactly as expected.
Using XO for this is still better though, it's generally faster, easier to setup, more reliable, and much faster and easier to recover from backups.
If you are considering this as a comparison to VMware, it's worth noting that it's not really a positive thing that VMware requires you buy a separate product entirely in order to handle backups.
Well said, I totally agree.
-
We really need those kind of testimony being visible
-
Hello @planedrop,
Thank you so much for your great reply.
I will test the XO backup. -
If you havenât found a suitable backup software, you can try Vinchin Backup & Recovery. It can not only back up XCP-ng, but also back up virtual machines on many other platforms, as well as have powerful migration functions. I know this looks like a sales pitch, but it works really well.
-
Before migrating to XCP-NG I was a VMWare user with Veeam as my backup solution, it works but it's 3rd party and somewhat bloated. I think one of the big things xcp-ng has to offer is the native backup. I honestly wouldn't even consider Veeam unless there is some niche use for it that native can't do.
-
@aurora-chase why would you want to use a 3rd party solution? XO has it all built in. Question is what feature is it your wanting and what doesnât XO have built in which veeam have? Personally my opinion is that XO has all features that Veeam has and using Veeam means an extra VM and more resources.
-
@jbamford Why use Veeam? Because Veeam is an industry standard and certified for use in many GxP businesses. It offers agentless VM backups with existing VMware. It also offers agents for windows backups for standalone workstations (that XO does not). Veeam also supports tapes (LTO). Yes, tapes are still a thing. Like VMware, it's the 900 pound gorilla in the room, so you can't ignore it.
I use XO for backups on XCP (on-site and off-site storage). It's great to have an integrated management and backup solution in one setup.
-
@Andrew Meh if you say so, i mean it is up to you but it will only end in tears.
Making something work for backups which is so crucial is a bad thing.
-
@Andrew veeam is a standart only because other hypervisors have no builtin backups. It not a silver bullet and can't backup everything.
-
We're using Veeam for our VMware platform and XOA for our XCP platform and I have to say I prefer XOA. Why may one ask?
Well it is dead simple, its not bloated, you have a ton of options when it comes to configuration, destination, scheduling and so on.Veeam on the other hand is A LOT faster, we're using a 10G link to our backup site and we're seeing speeds over 7Gbit/s when backing up our VMware platform and I know this is something Vates is working hard on improving in XOA.
Veeam also has application aware backups which is a big deal when you're running MSSQL inside your VM's - I dont think there is any plans from Vates in supporting this and this might be a big deal for customers comming from the VMware and Veeam-side. -
@nikade that is one of the downfalls. Limit on backup, I have a 10Gbp iSCSI backbone with 10Gbp core network but maximum I am able to achieve is 80mbps maximum turns outs itâs a known problem according to Olivier Citrix Hypervisor also has the same problem.
-
Hi @jbamford,
So, the Veeam is faster than XO. -
@jasonnix there is having something faster and there is something thatâs going to be reliable. Iâd rather compromise on faster backup speed and have the designed backup system.
Iâm not saying that Veeam isnât going to be reliable but what I am going to say is that you are at more risk of backups not being reliable and you are going to have to consult Veeam if you need help resolving a issue, where with XO you are not going to have any problems as itâs designed to work.
Not only that you need to think about extra licensing too.
If this is a Production environment I would go with the XCP-ng and XO because if something goes wrong you are going to be a laughing stock to the company it will be embarrassing. If itâs a homelab then it doesnât really matter if it breaks.
-
@jasonnix speediness of the backups is certainly a consideration.
As is having an complete ecosystem designed to work together, and not needing to be piecemealed together.
If you want to piecemeal your ecosystem together, that is fine, but you won't find any holistic support from either the XCP-ng community, while you're using Veeam for your backups and attempting to do everything through the CLI.
-
@DustinB, I like the CLI, because sometimes you don't have access to the graphic environment.
-
@jasonnix said in Veeam and XCP-ng:
@DustinB, I like the CLI, because sometimes you don't have access to the graphic environment.
You are thinking like this why? XO can be deployed in a matter of literal minutes, import your configuration file and you're back in working order.
-
@jbamford said in Veeam and XCP-ng:
@nikade that is one of the downfalls. Limit on backup, I have a 10Gbp iSCSI backbone with 10Gbp core network but maximum I am able to achieve is 80mbps maximum turns outs itâs a known problem according to Olivier Citrix Hypervisor also has the same problem.
Yeah it is a known issue that has been around for years, I even reported it on XenServer bugtracker in 2018 and nothing is done about it from Citrix.
I have been dicussing it with @olivierlambert many times and there is some hope that SMAPIv3 will be able to increase the speed.IMO the speeds are not at "enterprise" level and this is probably a thing that will limit many of the bigger migrations from VMware to XCP-NG and make ppl choose Proxmox instead.
-
I wanted to share a personal experience that might be helpful to others, especially if they're transitioning from VMware to XCP-NG like I am. With over 10 years of experience with VMware and about a year with XCP-NG, I found myself facing a challenge due to my lack of familiarity with XCP-NG.
During the transition, I overlooked a crucial detail: the storage provisioning. In VMware, I always used thick provisioning for its perceived speed advantages. However, in XCP-NG, I inadvertently configured one of my hosts with thick provisioning instead of thin provisioning.
This oversight became apparent when the thick-provisioned storage on one of my XCP-NG hosts reached its capacity limit. As a result, I couldn't perform any backups using Xen Orchestra (XO) because there wasn't enough storage available for snapshots.
While I prefer the simplicity of performing backups directly in XO, my mistake necessitated an alternative solution. Fortunately, I had a Veeam license available, and Veeam quickly came to the rescue. Despite my preference for XO, Veeam provided a reliable backup solution in this instance when XO couldn't.
-
@s-master said in Veeam and XCP-ng:
reached its capacity limit
it has nothing to do with xen or provisioning type.
-
I do not think, there will be a "Veeam for XCP-ng". I think, we should hope and help to improve XOA.
My (constructive) critic points:
- Backup and restore speed should be higher
- Instant restore "pendant" is missing --> makes restore speed MORE critical
- No real "progressbar" on jobs!
- Maintenance-jobs not really visible at all (backup-merge!)
There is also one other thing, but I think, it can be handled mostly with additional agent-based-software:
- Application aware backups (active directory, sql, etc.)
--> So the main point is: You are currently not able to estimate the speed or progress of jobs until they are finished and you do not see maintence jobs
