@Obsolesce said in VM replication vs vSAN on two hosts?: @DustinB3403 said in VM replication vs vSAN on two hosts?: @scottalanmiller said in VM replication vs vSAN on two hosts?: @DustinB3403 said in VM replication vs vSAN on two hosts?: Replication may occur as often as every minute, but you could still lose files or changes within that time span that were never copied to the target. I think Veeam limits to every 15 minutes? I don't know as we don't use Veeam replication. I know other solutions can go as often as every minute. But that is outside of this scope. Some every 30 seconds. DRBD does it in milliseconds, as fast as the platform can do it.

That resource library is really light on content. How did StarWind Virtual SAN solve their manual backup problem? "High performance and data high availability (HA) were not the only benefits for the company, meaning StarWind support t hat continues to solve the problems with ease." Is having to contact support for problems with the VSAN another benefit? It might as well say: Problem: Company needs to make a stew. Solution: Company bought a pot.

All of the hypervisors are built for this. It's the storage and clustering that may or may not be built for this. As a rule, highest performance systems are not clustered at all, the can't be. Clustering takes a performance hit. But in the extreme performance space products like VMware and Starwind are the top dogs. Both have multiple solutions, but they are using tech like memory sharing, localized data, NVMEoF, log structuring, and others to do things that Gluster just can't do. So much so that products like Gluster sometimes use these techs on top to accelerate them (example: Starwind makes a CEPH accelerator platform.)