KVM Backing and Support
-
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
There are merits to both sides. For example we do have a lot "backed up" in Git. Things like DHCP servers, DNS servers, web servers, etc that don't have stateful data are stored in Git. Then that Git server is obviously backed up. And you get a little extra redundancy since Git is distributed by nature. We do "agent" based but only because everything is under some type of CM. So it's easy to just make sure that system has the agent's backup role applied to it and that's done automatically.
But I can also see how small shops with not much help would to spend a small amount of money and be able to do agentless with not much extra work.
The other thing that I think people loose track of in their "war on state sprawl" is that most companies don't control the code they have deployed. 75% of code in large enterprises they don't own. You can do platform migrations to open source, and hire developers to do this but if the alternative is $1000 a host for a Veeam license you will get laughed out of the meeting by anyone who's done an ERP migration.
Realistically the easiest way to get rid of backup headaches is to make them someone else's problem. Use SaaS applications, and if it makes sense use SaaS Backup products (Spanning). If the person who owns the code is delivering it, ideally they should be able to achieve enough scale to make custom protection work, or aggregate enough demand to have more leverage with the backup vendors they purchase from.
10000%. If you have the option to use someone else's systems, do it. However while most things in our group are open source, our ERP is all tied into Oracle and a lot of that is delivered with APEX. To get out of that mess would cost astronomical amounts so it's still there.
-
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
They might take more effort and skill
They tend to require more care and feeding, and by structure tend to use a lot more space (Just using application level backup tools produces fulls on every backup job, does a ton more IO, and layering this with LVM snapshot shipping and volume shipping leads to tons of redundant copies of data vs. using something like Commvault that will dedupe everything in a pool. Because of the overhead and costs you often don't see very granular RPO's vs. something that has a journal log and can DVR style replay (Like TimeFinder, or RecoverPoint).
https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/10/postmortem-of-database-outage-of-january-31/
Saying anyone that has a problem with recovery "isn't doing them right" is kind of a no true Scotsman argument.
While plenty of large shops "do it right" (Google etc) I think pointing to the processes that people who have 100K server instances doing the same thing as how a SMB should run can quickly turn into the "cargo cult of the cloud".Lage shops (like my employer) tend to employ a mix. Data that can be recreated, or lacks compliance requirements, and is large analytic cloud data I can see going down that route. Some webserver and SQL VMs? Those are going to get a traditional backup tool.
Also there isn't an "Enterprise solution" like huge companies have one team of ops people that work on everything. If you look at larger companies there are tons of smaller teams writing their own solutions. Places like Netflix encourage that and you can write whatever solution you want as long as it fits and meets API requirements, backup strategies, health checks, etc. There isn't a specific Enterprise way of doing things.
-
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
It also bothers me to no end that the systems we use to store our most important data (databases) have the least backup (and redundancy) options. I try to use solutions that rely on them as little as possible (that's why I use things like Grav).
This is also why I like Elasticsearch so much. Clustering is super easy and so are snapshots/backups.
It's a bit unfair to compare a cloud native No-SQL applications that can play fast and lose with ACID consistency on it's native capabilities against a relational database that's core engine was designed in the 1980's and has a mission to "never loose a transaction at any cost". I do think more data goes into RDMS's than needs to be. Even if I"m going to use something like Casandra I'd consider running a packaged build with added tools for backup/recovery operations (Datastax?) just as it simplifies the admin overhead.
That was kind of what I meant to point out. Those systems have been around for so long that they've had that amount of time to build in a native replication system (not just things like Galera). Postgres has something but I've never tried. It just seems that if you've been around for 30 years you could have an easier replication set up than currently exists.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
It also bothers me to no end that the systems we use to store our most important data (databases) have the least backup (and redundancy) options. I try to use solutions that rely on them as little as possible (that's why I use things like Grav).
This is also why I like Elasticsearch so much. Clustering is super easy and so are snapshots/backups.
It's a bit unfair to compare a cloud native No-SQL applications that can play fast and lose with ACID consistency on it's native capabilities against a relational database that's core engine was designed in the 1980's and has a mission to "never loose a transaction at any cost". I do think more data goes into RDMS's than needs to be. Even if I"m going to use something like Casandra I'd consider running a packaged build with added tools for backup/recovery operations (Datastax?) just as it simplifies the admin overhead.
That was kind of what I meant to point out. Those systems have been around for so long that they've had that amount of time to build in a native replication system (not just things like Galera). Postgres has something but I've never tried. It just seems that if you've been around for 30 years you could have an easier replication set up than currently exists.
The other problem with systems like this is their testing is very basic. Often simply checksums, or unit testing and not testing of a group of applications and VM's that require function to restore and hit a RPO point. If I"m using SRM or Veeam I can easily do an automated test and spin up a group of 10 VM's that make up the full dependency chain and make sure that a test can be done.
If I'm just scripting backups of PostGres DB I'm at the mercy of my entire build toolchain to do a full stack test (which is a massive non-trivial amount of IO and time vs. SureBackup labs, or linked clones triggered by SRM).
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@jaredbusch said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
Use agent based,
Screw that shit. Let's just jump back to 1999 shall we?
It's not a jump back, it's sticking with the more enterprise solution. Agentless is limited in scope and requires support at the hypervisor, OS, and application level. Essentially no enterprise shop can use it, as there is no agentless system that supports the range of apps that shops use. So no enterprise has moved to agentless. Many use it as an "extra" piece, making backups more complex and more expensive, rather than less.
Really, for the time being, agentless is mostly just marketing hype. So jumping to "tried and true" rather than "sounds impressive and is rarely thought through" is exactly what we should want.
My biggest concerns w/ agent based are:
- A nas IS cheap don't bore too much about space. Just backup.
- is there a cheap solution with centraluzed management of backups? Cross platform?
Any hints?!
-
@matteo-nunziati said in KVM Backing and Support:
A nas IS cheap don't bore too much about space. Just backup.
is there a cheap solution with centraluzed management of backups? Cross platform?For primary backup target I"m becoming less in love with Cheap NAS's at sacle.
- Restore performance is terrible if it's anything but a few files or a small VM.
- At large scale I've seen data integrity errors (especially ones that do non-MDRAID implementations).
-
@matteo-nunziati said in KVM Backing and Support:
My biggest concerns w/ agent based are:
- A nas IS cheap don't bore too much about space. Just backup.
- is there a cheap solution with centraluzed management of backups? Cross platform?
Any hints?!
-
The storage component is not related to agent vs. agentless. I'm not sure what you are asking here. You need a place to store the backups identically between different backup approaches.
-
Agent based is the norm, agentless is the niche. There are 10-100 options of agent based for every agentless one. And the big players, like Veeam, Unitrends, etc offer both. It's "how you deploy the product", not what product you choose in many cases. And yes, there are free options.
-
What does cross platform mean in this context?
-
Why do you worry about these things with agent based and not with agentless, even though they are equal and both affected by them just the same?
-
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
There are merits to both sides. For example we do have a lot "backed up" in Git. Things like DHCP servers, DNS servers, web servers, etc that don't have stateful data are stored in Git. Then that Git server is obviously backed up. And you get a little extra redundancy since Git is distributed by nature. We do "agent" based but only because everything is under some type of CM. So it's easy to just make sure that system has the agent's backup role applied to it and that's done automatically.
But I can also see how small shops with not much help would to spend a small amount of money and be able to do agentless with not much extra work.
The other thing that I think people loose track of in their "war on state sprawl" is that most companies don't control the code they have deployed. 75% of code in large enterprises they don't own. You can do platform migrations to open source, and hire developers to do this but if the alternative is $1000 a host for a Veeam license you will get laughed out of the meeting by anyone who's done an ERP migration.
Realistically the easiest way to get rid of backup headaches is to make them someone else's problem. Use SaaS applications, and if it makes sense use SaaS Backup products (Spanning). If the person who owns the code is delivering it, ideally they should be able to achieve enough scale to make custom protection work, or aggregate enough demand to have more leverage with the backup vendors they purchase from.
10000%. If you have the option to use someone else's systems, do it. However while most things in our group are open source, our ERP is all tied into Oracle and a lot of that is delivered with APEX.
APEX is just Access for people with deep pockets and no clue.
-
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
There are merits to both sides. For example we do have a lot "backed up" in Git. Things like DHCP servers, DNS servers, web servers, etc that don't have stateful data are stored in Git. Then that Git server is obviously backed up. And you get a little extra redundancy since Git is distributed by nature. We do "agent" based but only because everything is under some type of CM. So it's easy to just make sure that system has the agent's backup role applied to it and that's done automatically.
But I can also see how small shops with not much help would to spend a small amount of money and be able to do agentless with not much extra work.
The other thing that I think people loose track of in their "war on state sprawl" is that most companies don't control the code they have deployed. 75% of code in large enterprises they don't own. You can do platform migrations to open source, and hire developers to do this but if the alternative is $1000 a host for a Veeam license you will get laughed out of the meeting by anyone who's done an ERP migration.
And then they get laughed at by a competent CIO who knows that if you can't redeploy a product, it's not production ready. If your company depends on running state and has no means to recover platforms, that's a ridiculously silly place to be, especially for an enterprise. Talk about not having a handle on the systems. That means that if it breaks, no one is actually sure how to fix it and has no reliable path to a known good state!
The ability to fix a system and maintain a system means you can rebuild it. If you fear rebuilding, it means you've admitted you can't maintain it and are just hoping for the best.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
There are merits to both sides. For example we do have a lot "backed up" in Git. Things like DHCP servers, DNS servers, web servers, etc that don't have stateful data are stored in Git. Then that Git server is obviously backed up. And you get a little extra redundancy since Git is distributed by nature. We do "agent" based but only because everything is under some type of CM. So it's easy to just make sure that system has the agent's backup role applied to it and that's done automatically.
But I can also see how small shops with not much help would to spend a small amount of money and be able to do agentless with not much extra work.
The other thing that I think people loose track of in their "war on state sprawl" is that most companies don't control the code they have deployed. 75% of code in large enterprises they don't own. You can do platform migrations to open source, and hire developers to do this but if the alternative is $1000 a host for a Veeam license you will get laughed out of the meeting by anyone who's done an ERP migration.
Realistically the easiest way to get rid of backup headaches is to make them someone else's problem. Use SaaS applications, and if it makes sense use SaaS Backup products (Spanning). If the person who owns the code is delivering it, ideally they should be able to achieve enough scale to make custom protection work, or aggregate enough demand to have more leverage with the backup vendors they purchase from.
10000%. If you have the option to use someone else's systems, do it. However while most things in our group are open source, our ERP is all tied into Oracle and a lot of that is delivered with APEX.
APEX is just Access for people with deep pockets and no clue.
That was my point. If you don't have a team who knows what they're doing you should be using someone else's.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
True, but does that service alleviate the concerns? Installing ES is nothing. It's using it that is some cause for cost problems, and wouldn't those exsit the same?
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
There are merits to both sides. For example we do have a lot "backed up" in Git. Things like DHCP servers, DNS servers, web servers, etc that don't have stateful data are stored in Git. Then that Git server is obviously backed up. And you get a little extra redundancy since Git is distributed by nature. We do "agent" based but only because everything is under some type of CM. So it's easy to just make sure that system has the agent's backup role applied to it and that's done automatically.
But I can also see how small shops with not much help would to spend a small amount of money and be able to do agentless with not much extra work.
The other thing that I think people loose track of in their "war on state sprawl" is that most companies don't control the code they have deployed. 75% of code in large enterprises they don't own. You can do platform migrations to open source, and hire developers to do this but if the alternative is $1000 a host for a Veeam license you will get laughed out of the meeting by anyone who's done an ERP migration.
Realistically the easiest way to get rid of backup headaches is to make them someone else's problem. Use SaaS applications, and if it makes sense use SaaS Backup products (Spanning). If the person who owns the code is delivering it, ideally they should be able to achieve enough scale to make custom protection work, or aggregate enough demand to have more leverage with the backup vendors they purchase from.
10000%. If you have the option to use someone else's systems, do it. However while most things in our group are open source, our ERP is all tied into Oracle and a lot of that is delivered with APEX.
APEX is just Access for people with deep pockets and no clue.
That was my point. If you don't have a team who knows what they're doing you should be using someone else's.
Yeah, the overall cost of bad staff is so much higher than people think that it is. People often say things like "I save so much money by hiring a $50K admin instead of a $100K admin", and ignore that their budget is $500K in hardware and software when it should be $100K. They focus on staff costs and ignore business costs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
True, but does that service alleviate the concerns? Installing ES is nothing. It's using it that is some cause for cost problems, and wouldn't those exsit the same?
It's running somewhere else. You have a hosted solution for that vs managing that in house. That's what I was getting at. It's worth the perceived extra cost to host somewhere else because it will be cheaper in the long run.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
True, but does that service alleviate the concerns? Installing ES is nothing. It's using it that is some cause for cost problems, and wouldn't those exsit the same?
It's running somewhere else. You have a hosted solution for that vs managing that in house. That's what I was getting at. It's worth the perceived extra cost to host somewhere else because it will be cheaper in the long run.
Right, I get that. But my point was that when people say that ElasticSearch is hard and takes effort, they aren't actually talking about ElasticSearch. They are talking about the apps that are deployed and talk to ElasticSearch. Actually running ElasticSearch takes no effort at all, it's trivial. Amazon's hosted product doesn't buy you anything as the parts that people are actually referring to aren't addressed and require just as much effort and knowledge to use with Amazon's hosted ES as with your own.
It's the full stack hosted that removes the issue that people are concerned about.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
True, but does that service alleviate the concerns? Installing ES is nothing. It's using it that is some cause for cost problems, and wouldn't those exsit the same?
It's running somewhere else. You have a hosted solution for that vs managing that in house. That's what I was getting at. It's worth the perceived extra cost to host somewhere else because it will be cheaper in the long run.
Right, I get that. But my point was that when people say that ElasticSearch is hard and takes effort, they aren't actually talking about ElasticSearch. They are talking about the apps that are deployed and talk to ElasticSearch. Actually running ElasticSearch takes no effort at all, it's trivial. Amazon's hosted product doesn't buy you anything as the parts that people are actually referring to aren't addressed and require just as much effort and knowledge to use with Amazon's hosted ES as with your own.
It's the full stack hosted that removes the issue that people are concerned about.
Ooh ic. Theirs has Kibana and everything set up. So it gives you a good bit more. I haven't looked to see if it has auth or not which would be killer since their Xpack for Kibana is expensive.
-
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@stacksofplates said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@storageninja said in KVM Backing and Support:
For log analytic situations where data sovereignty isn't a concern, rather than a SMB learn Elasticsearch (which isn't bad to be fair) they could also just use a SaaS provider. SumoLogic, or Log Inteligence (we just launched), Splunk (if they have lots of gold pressed latinum).etc
Yeah, but to be fair, it takes like two months of something like Splunk to pay for someone competent to learn ElasticSearch. It's very hard to justify SaaS in that space.
That's just splunk though. Some are reasonable. Like AWS new Elastic Stack service.
True, but does that service alleviate the concerns? Installing ES is nothing. It's using it that is some cause for cost problems, and wouldn't those exsit the same?
It's running somewhere else. You have a hosted solution for that vs managing that in house. That's what I was getting at. It's worth the perceived extra cost to host somewhere else because it will be cheaper in the long run.
Right, I get that. But my point was that when people say that ElasticSearch is hard and takes effort, they aren't actually talking about ElasticSearch. They are talking about the apps that are deployed and talk to ElasticSearch. Actually running ElasticSearch takes no effort at all, it's trivial. Amazon's hosted product doesn't buy you anything as the parts that people are actually referring to aren't addressed and require just as much effort and knowledge to use with Amazon's hosted ES as with your own.
It's the full stack hosted that removes the issue that people are concerned about.
Ooh ic. Theirs has Kibana and everything set up. So it gives you a good bit more. I haven't looked to see if it has auth or not which would be killer since their Xpack for Kibana is expensive.
OH, okay, well that's very different. If it is basically an entire ELK stack, that's pretty cool then. That I could see being worthwhile pretty easily if they price it right.
-
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@matteo-nunziati said in KVM Backing and Support:
My biggest concerns w/ agent based are:
- A nas IS cheap don't bore too much about space. Just backup.
- is there a cheap solution with centraluzed management of backups? Cross platform?
Any hints?!
- The storage component is not related to agent vs. agentless. I'm not sure what you are asking here. You need a place to store the backups identically between different backup approaches.
Its about the price and perf for a full bloated vm backup vs small data backup
- Agent based is the norm, agentless is the niche. There are 10-100 options of agent based for every agentless one. And the big players, like Veeam, Unitrends, etc offer both. It's "how you deploy the product", not what product you choose in many cases. And yes, there are free options.
Yes I'm aware of pay options but they are expensive. What I miss is a cheap centrslized backup solution w/ agents. Just to say Veeam is expensive here.
- What does cross platform mean in this context?
I mean I can install the same agent both on win and linux
- Why do you worry about these things with agent based and not with agentless, even though they are equal and both affected by them just the same?
Because I install altaro have a single admin interface an can backup delta vm in a few minutes.
-
@matteo-nunziati said in KVM Backing and Support:
@scottalanmiller said in KVM Backing and Support:
@matteo-nunziati said in KVM Backing and Support:
My biggest concerns w/ agent based are:
- A nas IS cheap don't bore too much about space. Just backup.
- is there a cheap solution with centraluzed management of backups? Cross platform?
Any hints?!
- The storage component is not related to agent vs. agentless. I'm not sure what you are asking here. You need a place to store the backups identically between different backup approaches.
Its about the price and perf for a full bloated vm backup vs small data backup
Agent backups are generally associated with small, efficient backups of only what is needed, and agentless with backing up everything willy nilly. But that's a false association. Agentless can pick and choose, agent based can go for broke. In both cases, it's an identical amount of data, it all comes down to configuration choices.
