Solved Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Okay. Let's say our server is on VM and using Veeam B&R Replica for replicating the VM. Whether the other VM to which we are replicating is Live or Powered Off ?
What should we do at the time Main Server failure to utilize secondary server ?
Replication always means "powered off." You need VMware's Fault Tolerance for a powered on system. Powered On only works when memory is kept in sync, which no one but VMware can do today.
I see. So as we are going with Hyper-V, because it's free, the replicated VM will be Powered Off and we need to Power it ON at the time failure ? or this third party tools like Veeam B&R, Starwind VSAN will trigger automatically ?
Hyper-V will do the triggering, Starwind just makes the storage HA so that the Hyper-V trigger will work
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
1. Hyper V Replica : I know it's poor man's DC. So there should some limitations or hard work as it comes for free. For me, redundancy matters and ok with Veeam pricing.
Why, if hard work is okay, would you do this instead of real high availability with Starwind?
No idea about Starwind HA. I will chat with Sales guy soon to understand the things...
It's free. And provides for true HA. No data loss in a failover.
Wow. Let me echo what I understand :
- We have two physical servers (Server A and Server B )
- Both servers (A and B ) running Hyper-V virtualization
- Server A is having main Windows Server VM and trying to replicate with Other VM on Server B
- So here I can use, Free VSAN from Starwind
Am I correct ?
Kind of.... for the Free VSAN appliance you need external storage. The great thing about the Free VSAN appliance is you can get out of an IPOD design, the suck part two it is you'd need double the external storage to be truly safe.
You need the paid version of Starwinds VSAN for a 2 host configuration.
No, no external storage needed. You are thinking of the product on the website, but we are meaning the one that they give away here.
-
Ohhh! totally forgot about that.... you should find that link and remind us...
-
@romo is going to be starting a Hyper-V and Starwind project really soon with loads of documentation here. But maybe not until this weekend. But look for that to be coming soon. That'll be the very latest Hyper-V 2016 and the latest Starwind VSAN.
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Hi all,
This is my future plan to setup Windows Server Redundancy ( DC+File Server).
Part 1: Physical Server
Currently our DC + File Server is running on one Physical Server. Is there any option at all for physical server replication ? with other server, so that we can make second server as primary manually or automatically in case of main server failure ?
Part 2: Virtual Server
I believe, physical server replication is not available and VM Replica is the best option.
Now I am trying to understand Hyper V Free Replica VS Veeam Replica Paid:
1. Hyper V Replica : I know it's poor man's DC. So there should some limitations or hard work as it comes for free. For me, redundancy matters and ok with Veeam pricing.
2. Hyper V Failover Cluster : As it will require two virtual servers (of course best option to be on different servers), so two physical servers and SAN/NAS, which is out of budget (not an option for me) and I know don't understand how it's redundant incase of SAN failure ?
3. Veeam B&R Replica Standard : I have chosen standard (perpetual) , as it's ok for pricing and features. Here my confusion is, as it's saying Backup and Replication, for the Backup if we set backup target to NAS, it's fine,
a) But for replication we should set target to Physical Server ? which is with Hyper-V, so that we can Fire UP to make it as primary server in case of Actual Server failure, right ? I believe everything will be up and runs normally within some 30 minutes with around 1 hour data loss (let's say) ?
b) Once the main (original) server is okay and ready to run again (from failure), how about changed/updated data with secondary server ?( which was acting as primary server), whether Veeam software will update back ?
c) How it's going to work as Backup ? as it's replicating with all changes at the same time (like mirroring) ? Is that because of restore point or versioning of replica ?
Thanks for your time !!
You still need VM backup because you can't live with VM replication only. So if you got Veeam for VM backup - just leave VM replication to Veeam as well!
-
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
-
@KOOLER said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
You still need VM backup because you can't live with VM replication only. So if you got Veeam for VM backup - just leave VM replication to Veeam as well!
I love honest vendors!
-
Regarding backup, if you buy Veeam, then you do have the option to use it for Replication as well as for backup as @KOOLER stated.
It does work, but it does add complexity. It also adds features though.
Hyper-V replication has no notifications. You have to check it yourself.
Veeam does notifications by default.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Hyper-V will do the triggering, Starwind just makes the storage HA so that the Hyper-V trigger will work
No, Hyper-V does not. You have to have Clustering setup for that. Clustering also requires all VM's on both servers to be fully licensed.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.
But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.
I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.
But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.
I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)
I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.
-
I would not buy Veeam for backup as my first choice for Hyper-V if you have less than 1TB of data to backup though.
Well assuming that Unitrends still offers 1TB for free.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.
But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.
I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)
I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.
That's exactly I was looking, easier and more featured.
How about you said "increasing complexity" ?
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
I would not buy Veeam for backup as my first choice for Hyper-V if you have less than 1TB of data to backup though.
Well assuming that Unitrends still offers 1TB for free.
Yeah, I am aware of free 1TB by unitrends.
Well, we are not eligible for that
as we have more than that data. -
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.
But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.
I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)
I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.
That's exactly I was looking, easier and more featured.
How about you said "increasing complexity" ?
You hare adding pieces. By definition, that is adding complexity. You now have to update Veeam in addition to Hyper-V. Veeam installs components on the Hyper-V servers, so there is a new fail point. I have never seen this fail, but it certainly can happen.
-
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
I would not buy Veeam for backup as my first choice for Hyper-V if you have less than 1TB of data to backup though.
Well assuming that Unitrends still offers 1TB for free.
Yeah, I am aware of free 1TB by unitrends.
Well, we are not eligible for that
as we have more than that data.That you checked is great.
-
For a "simple" (aka with less moving parts, less complexity) BackUp & Replication product, I would take a good hard look at http://www.altaro.com/vm-backup/
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@openit said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
@JaredBusch said in Hyper V replica VS Veeam B&R Replica.:
Why are you all over complicating things with extra software.
If he is going to use Hyper-V , then you only need Hyper-V.Server A: Running all the virtual workloads and replicating to Server B with native Hyper-V Replication.
Server B: Receiving the replication. All servers always powered off unless you are going to buy extra Microsoft licensing.
Hyper-V Clustering, not needed.
Nothing against Starwind, but this is completely overcomplicating things for a such a simple scenario.
I agree with you about using Hyper-v inbuilt replica will make things clear.
But when I seen Veeam B&R replication software, which was in budget price, thought to have a look how commercial product benefiting me.
I have never tried Hyper-V replication. And no idea how easier/harder it is. So I thought paid/commercial software will make my things easier and give peace of mind than free one (sometimes)
I would use Veeam over Hyper-V if you have it purchased because of the notifications if nothing else. You also get more control on how many replicas to keep and such.
That's exactly I was looking, easier and more featured.
How about you said "increasing complexity" ?
You hare adding pieces. By definition, that is adding complexity. You now have to update Veeam in addition to Hyper-V. Veeam installs components on the Hyper-V servers, so there is a new fail point. I have never seen this fail, but it certainly can happen.
I see.
What if I planned to get Veeam for VMs Backup on Hyper-V. So, Veeam is already installed for Backup purpose, what if I use if for Replication also
? -
I'm still stuck scratching my head wondering why we need HA, Veeam, Starwind, SANs, etc... just for 1 DC and 1 FileServer???
I haven't seen anything else mentioned.
First, you don't want to replicate DC's. Have two DC's, both virtualized, on different physical servers, non-replicated.
Second, if you only have one other VM (your file server), you don't need anything else besides Windows Server Backup (WSB). There is no reason what so ever WSB can't handle backing up 2 DCs and 1 File Server. Three servers I can't see spending thousands on something you can do for free with no additional benefit (in your scenario).
I don't see the point in replicating a file server period. If you need replication for a file server, you can use DFS-R. That's even better.
-
What I'm envisioning, is two hypervisors (hosts). HV1 and HV2.
HV1
-- DC1 (virtual machine on HV1)
-- FS1 (virtual machine on HV1)
------ FS1 is your file server with DFSR replicating to FS2.HV2
-- DC2 (virtual machine on HV2)
-- FS2 (virtual machine on HV2)
----- FS2 is a second, separate file server running DFSR with FS1.Windows Server Backup running on both hosts backing up everything if you have the room. May be redundant, but you only NEED to back up one host completely.
