ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication

    IT Discussion
    xen orchestra continuous replication
    7
    52
    6.7k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • KellyK
      Kelly @Dashrender
      last edited by

      @Dashrender said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

      @Kelly said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

      I've actually been looking at the commercial version of XO for my primary backup system now that I'm almost 100% XenServer. It looks like decent value for the money.

      Are you using it for backups as well?
      If so, how is the backup performance wise? the last time I tried it was pretty slow. 700 GB took 2+ days, that was before the last major update though, and XS v6.5

      Haven't tried it yet. I'm just reaching the evaluation stage.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • BRRABillB
        BRRABill @FATeknollogee
        last edited by BRRABill

        @FATeknollogee said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

        @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

        @Dashrender Speed of backup is not related to XO. Believe me, if we could done something about that, we would do it. But there is improvements on XS7 and a new patch coming will also double or triple perfs (at least).

        A new patch from you (XO) or from Citrix/Xen?

        There is a thread here on ML that describes the bug, and the patching process Citrix is working on. You can subscribe to it to follow along with what they are doing. @olivier is a major piece of that.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • DashrenderD
          Dashrender @olivier
          last edited by

          @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

          @Dashrender Speed of backup is not related to XO. Believe me, if we could done something about that, we would do it. But there is improvements on XS7 and a new patch coming will also double or triple perfs (at least).

          Yeah - I know that it's not XO's fault. Considering how slow backups are on XS, I'm a bit amazed it's used. I say this slightly tongue in cheek.

          I know there was talk of improvement - was the a placebo before in earlier versions of XS 7?

          olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • olivierO
            olivier @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender It's not slow for everyone: I'm maxing a GBit link without any problem and we have some users having larger connections used for backup. Otherwise, we won't have clients.

            Also, everyone knows (in XS world at least) that having large VMs -in terms of disk space- is not a good idea*, so it's not a common practice (and that's good).

            • : for a lot of reasons, time to backup, snapshot space, Xen storage motion time, restore time and a LOT of things.
            FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierO
              olivier
              last edited by

              To take your example, your 700GB backup should take 4 or 5 hours max, and then delta would be almost done instantly.

              DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DustinB3403D
                DustinB3403 @olivier
                last edited by

                @olivier So a question for you is with CR, would you also take forever delta's?

                olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • olivierO
                  olivier @DustinB3403
                  last edited by

                  @DustinB3403 This is kind of similar than delta backup, but the merge is done inside XenServer directly. After the first replication (full), it will only send the delta's.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • FATeknollogeeF
                    FATeknollogee @olivier
                    last edited by

                    @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

                    @Dashrender It's not slow for everyone: I'm maxing a GBit link without any problem and we have some users having larger connections used for backup. Otherwise, we won't have clients.

                    Also, everyone knows (in XS world at least) that having large VMs -in terms of disk space- is not a good idea*, so it's not a common practice (and that's good).

                    • : for a lot of reasons, time to backup, snapshot space, Xen storage motion time, restore time and a LOT of things.

                    How large is too large?

                    DustinB3403D olivierO 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DustinB3403D
                      DustinB3403 @FATeknollogee
                      last edited by

                      @FATeknollogee said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

                      @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

                      @Dashrender It's not slow for everyone: I'm maxing a GBit link without any problem and we have some users having larger connections used for backup. Otherwise, we won't have clients.

                      Also, everyone knows (in XS world at least) that having large VMs -in terms of disk space- is not a good idea*, so it's not a common practice (and that's good).

                      • : for a lot of reasons, time to backup, snapshot space, Xen storage motion time, restore time and a LOT of things.

                      How large is too large?

                      Hundred's of TB's is the impression I was under.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • olivierO
                        olivier @FATeknollogee
                        last edited by

                        Hundreds of GBs starts to be harder/less flexible to play with in general. Anyway, the limit is 2TB due to VHD format.

                        I would prefer to use a filer and NFS/SMB to it from VMs. This way you separate your VM issues to your data/file issues.

                        FATeknollogeeF DustinB3403D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • FATeknollogeeF
                          FATeknollogee @olivier
                          last edited by

                          @olivier You prefer not to use local storage?

                          olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DustinB3403D
                            DustinB3403 @olivier
                            last edited by

                            @olivier yeah that sounds as if you prefer iSCSI data storage on the VM.

                            This way your VM is a meager 350GB c drive, and the data just hooks in from the back end.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • olivierO
                              olivier @FATeknollogee
                              last edited by

                              @FATeknollogee SR type doesn't matter in this case. I said to NOT attach large disks to VMs but to prefer, inside the VM, to mount a remote data store from a NAS/SAN/whatever.

                              This way your VM keeps a system disks (let's say 20 or 50GB) and that's all to backup/restore.

                              DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • DustinB3403D
                                DustinB3403 @olivier
                                last edited by

                                @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

                                @FATeknollogee SR type doesn't matter in this case. I said to NOT attach large disks to VMs but to prefer, inside the VM, to mount a remote data store from a NAS/SAN/whatever.

                                This way your VM keeps a system disks (let's say 20 or 50GB) and that's all to backup/restore.

                                That is how I read it, but it seems backwards to do so generally. Since local will always have a performance boost.

                                olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • olivierO
                                  olivier @DustinB3403
                                  last edited by

                                  @DustinB3403 You have to put this into context. A fast local SSD disk for a database or webserver is not a bad idea. But that won't need hundreds of GBs.

                                  For a "datastore", there isn't any perf problem to serve larger files on a remote location (when latency isn't an issue)

                                  DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • DustinB3403D
                                    DustinB3403 @olivier
                                    last edited by

                                    @olivier said in Xen Orchestra and Continuous Replication:

                                    @DustinB3403 You have to put this into context. A fast local SSD disk for a database or webserver is not a bad idea. But that won't need hundreds of GBs.

                                    For a "datastore", there isn't any perf problem to serve larger files on a remote location (when latency isn't an issue)

                                    combating latency is the issue though.

                                    😄

                                    olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • olivierO
                                      olivier @DustinB3403
                                      last edited by

                                      @DustinB3403 I mean latency of a NAS/SAN for serving files in a "normal" network isn't an issue in general (except for bad designed networks or undersized). For a DB or webserver, latency matters far more (with some order of magnitude)

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • FATeknollogeeF
                                        FATeknollogee
                                        last edited by

                                        I thought all the new cool kids are doing local storage/HCI etc..
                                        Now @olivier is saying he prefers a remote mounted datastore!
                                        @olivier I thought you were one of the cool kids?

                                        olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • DustinB3403D
                                          DustinB3403
                                          last edited by

                                          So @olivier just reading this here.

                                          It says

                                          1.Create a CR Job
                                          2. Manually run the first job
                                          3. When completed export the backup Why do we need to export the backup?
                                          4. Import it to the destination
                                          5. Remove the local copy.

                                          I'm planning on performing identical host to host replication. Is that wrong?

                                          olivierO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • olivierO
                                            olivier @FATeknollogee
                                            last edited by olivier

                                            @FATeknollogee I'm not especially vulnerable to trends. I prefer solutions that works and in the same time which are not over complicated.

                                            In this case, VMs with larger disks are always more complicated to handle in the end. That's my experience, in the XenServer world.

                                            I don't say to never do this or that, that's just in general, you are less exposed by splitting problems into smaller pieces.

                                            edit: that's also due to the storage architecture in XenServer. Maybe if it was far better/faster, my advice would be probably different. Having a lot of hope for SMAPIv3

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 2 / 3
                                            • First post
                                              Last post