Agent and Agentless Backups
-
@jaredbusch said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@jaredbusch said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
Agent based has to be written for each OS in use, but today the number of broadly deployed OSes is much smaller than the number of deployed hypervisors. For production servers Linux, Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD and AIX are essentially all that there are. With Linux and Windows representing nearly all deployed servers. For hypervisors, we have to consider not only the base products but resulting variants so the base products like KVM, Xen, Hyper-V, and VMware ESXi (plus type 2s perhaps), plus appliances like Scale, Nutanix, Simplivity, etc. and then cloud vendors like AWS, Vultr, Digital Ocean, Linode, etc. The range of needed support is far bigger and no vendor has broadly tackled this market.
Rose colored glasses in action if I ever saw it.
In what way? Very realistic.
You are painting agents in a magic light to suit your argument.
You toss out "Linux" under the agent based strength like it is a thing when it most certainly is not. Let's look at Veeam. Their agent works on "Windows" server and desktop versions. And the "Linux" agent works on deb and rpm based systems. That is a far cry from your magic everything. Also we know for a fact that 6 months ago it did not work on current Fedora systems.
Then Unitrends has an entire breakdown for all the various ways you have to setup the agent to work
Those are pretty huge sets of coverage. No agentless system comes close to that. Especially when you consider that some of those, like Mac, have to be physical or seen as physical, and some, like HP-UX use a virtualization that no agentless exists for.
-
@jaredbusch said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
When it comes to the agentless argument you then throw out cloud providers mixing them in with hypervisors solutions when that is an entirely different segment.
Not really, when you are using agents, and doing hybrid cloud, or unified disparate backup, that all "just works." There are companies that want to move from on prem to cloud and back, and in fact this is a huge push from the Windows world (and the Starwind one) and agent based is important for that.
-
@jaredbusch said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
Cloud solutions should leverage the cloud providers infrastructure. Most of them have an API of some sort to let you handle backing up your services if you need full backups. Moving things to places like this though should generally move to stateless control and only backing up of the data separately, etc.
"Should", I agree. but once we are stateless, why do we use agent based OR agentless backups? Neither tends to make sense at that point once we can create fresh without needing a backup mechanism at all, only the configuration system. And data backups, when it is pure data, while either agent or agentless could do it, is often far more efficient and standard to use native tools because the data set is generally so isolated.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
-
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
-
Agentless backups still require hooks into the OS to truly function. It's just that those hooks come from PV drivers on the platform, not from agents. It's all still there in the code, though. Agentless isn't magic, neither are agents. Both have limitations, lots of them. Agentless can force a non-stable snap of anything running on the platform but you have to accept:
- The limitation of the platform (e.g. no physical, only AMD64, no cloud, etc.)
- That the backups aren't meant to be consistent.
The first is fine, if it meets your needs. The second violates a basic principle of take backups.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
That doesn't apply because it won't even run in Hyper-V. I'm sure you got my point...
-
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
That doesn't apply because it won't even run in Hyper-V. I'm sure you got my point...
You are missing his point. He is adding these in to the Type 1 hypervisors list.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
@scottalanmiller you have to take the outliers out of the equation. . . as they are so few and far inbetween that you might as just "build your own backup".
Look at the 99% of the world and tell me that agentless isn't "good enough" or the best option in most cases.
-
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
That doesn't apply because it won't even run in Hyper-V. I'm sure you got my point...
But your point was that agentless supports anything. But it doesn't, it's decently limited. Both in concept, limited the same as agents, and in real market terms, it's extremely limited as available today.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
That doesn't apply because it won't even run in Hyper-V. I'm sure you got my point...
But your point was that agentless supports anything. But it doesn't, it's decently limited. Both in concept, limited the same as agents, and in real market terms, it's extremely limited as available today.
Missed my point then I take it...
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
@scottalanmiller you have to take the outliers out of the equation. . . as they are so few and far inbetween that you might as just "build your own backup".
Look at the 99% of the world and tell me that agentless isn't "good enough" or the best option in most cases.
Okay. It's not good enough.
It's not the outliers, that's why I explained carefully above. It's nearly all SMBs and enterprises. They almost all have normal, mainstream things that are not supported by agentless making you either need an agent, or need to script. At which point, any overhead of an agent is moot and we are at equal footing from that perspective. Then the flexibility benefit of the agents tends to win out.
Show me a shop that things agentless is good enough, and most of the time I'll show you a shop that didn't consider their backup needs and has a critical workload unprotected. Is agentless at fault, no, but that's how it normally goes. They deployed agentless based on a myth, not on some intrinsic value.
-
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
That doesn't apply because it won't even run in Hyper-V. I'm sure you got my point...
But your point was that agentless supports anything. But it doesn't, it's decently limited. Both in concept, limited the same as agents, and in real market terms, it's extremely limited as available today.
Missed my point then I take it...
Then what was the point... that if we artificially limit to only what agentless supports, then it supports it? Granted. But... why is that a point?
-
Using HP-UX as a standing point is kind of like the clowns who spout that FreeNAS is a good choice.
HP-UX is it's own environment, with its unique clients and system requirements. It isn't even remotely viable comparison to what the rest of the world is using.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
Using HP-UX as a standing point is kind of like the clowns who spout that FreeNAS is a good choice.
HP-UX is it's own environment, with its unique clients and system requirements. It isn't even remotely viable comparison to what the rest of the world is using.
Instead of picking apart examples that were for a specific purpose that you missed, focus on how agentless would be superior for a normal shop. I've covered why normal shops of all sizes struggle with it. Show me where it has benefits to overcome that.
-
@scottalanmiller No, agentless isnt limited. If it is a vm running on a hypervisor you can do agentless backup of the vm, without exception.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
@scottalanmiller you have to take the outliers out of the equation. . . as they are so few and far inbetween that you might as just "build your own backup".
Look at the 99% of the world and tell me that agentless isn't "good enough" or the best option in most cases.
Okay. It's not good enough.
It's not the outliers, that's why I explained carefully above. It's nearly all SMBs and enterprises. They almost all have normal, mainstream things that are not supported by agentless making you either need an agent, or need to script. At which point, any overhead of an agent is moot and we are at equal footing from that perspective. Then the flexibility benefit of the agents tends to win out.
Show me a shop that things agentless is good enough, and most of the time I'll show you a shop that didn't consider their backup needs and has a critical workload unprotected. Is agentless at fault, no, but that's how it normally goes. They deployed agentless based on a myth, not on some intrinsic value.
My last job went agentless with XS and XOCE for our AD environment and over 13TB live backup. It was great, nothing to install and it all just worked. Without needing to worry about updating a backup agent on top of the other things that needed to be updated.
-
@dustinb3403 +1, Or making an entire vm with the exact specs of the failed vm, using some iso image the agent made that may or may not work.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@obsolesce said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
No agentless system comes close to that.
What do you mean? Agentless means the VM can have any OS you can dream up and it'll be backed up at the host level as a whole VM, unlike agent-based backup.
Really? Do AIX or HP-UX then?
@scottalanmiller you have to take the outliers out of the equation. . . as they are so few and far inbetween that you might as just "build your own backup".
Look at the 99% of the world and tell me that agentless isn't "good enough" or the best option in most cases.
Okay. It's not good enough.
It's not the outliers, that's why I explained carefully above. It's nearly all SMBs and enterprises. They almost all have normal, mainstream things that are not supported by agentless making you either need an agent, or need to script. At which point, any overhead of an agent is moot and we are at equal footing from that perspective. Then the flexibility benefit of the agents tends to win out.
Show me a shop that things agentless is good enough, and most of the time I'll show you a shop that didn't consider their backup needs and has a critical workload unprotected. Is agentless at fault, no, but that's how it normally goes. They deployed agentless based on a myth, not on some intrinsic value.
My last job went agentless with XS and XOCE for our AD environment and over 13TB live backup. It was great, nothing to install and it all just worked. Without needing to worry about updating a backup agent on top of the other things that needed to be updated.
And a wonderful kicker to it is that I was even able to mount my agentless backups as a disks in my VM and restore individual files.
Or the entire VM in a matter of minutes, be it AD or the file server.
-
@momurda said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@dustinb3403 +1, Or making an entire vm with the exact specs of the failed vm, using some iso image the agent made that may or may not work.
So the assumption now is that agentless never fails, but agent based restores do? I don't think that that is a valid approach. If your backup software is bad and unreliable, I doubt it is the agent model that is the issue, as all the same moving parts exist either way.
