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.
-
@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.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
That's a HORRIBLE way to deal with file restores. But agentless is better than that. Agentless has no such limitations. If it did, that would be the big killer right there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
No the argument is that having to run some special ISO to boot into a recovery environment creates a longer dependency chain, which during a disaster could be a fuck-all to getting things working quickly.
If you are using an agent, the agent should (I know Veeam can) just restore the VM, exact specs and all to the Hypervisor you choose.
-
@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.
Sure, but I've done agent based that is the same. So that's moot. That's just an anecdote that agentless can work. No one doubts that, so pointing it out has no purpose. Agent can work too. And either can not work.
Sounds like you had one bad experience with a bad backup and coincidentally it used agents. You had another good experience, and it coincidentally used agentless. And instead of associating the good setup to teh IT team or the products, you associated it with the approach.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
That's a HORRIBLE way to deal with file restores. But agentless is better than that. Agentless has no such limitations. If it did, that would be the big killer right there.
How is it horrible? This is what KVM uses and promotes on every subject. Mount your disks to your VM and restore whatever you need.
Or restore the entire damn thing to the last backup.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
No the argument is that having to run some special ISO to boot into a recovery environment creates a longer dependency chain, which during a disaster could be a fuck-all to getting things working quickly.
If you are using an agent, the agent should (I know Veeam can) just restore the VM, exact specs and all to the Hypervisor you choose.
So if agents can do it, what's the complaint?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@dustinb3403 said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
That's a HORRIBLE way to deal with file restores. But agentless is better than that. Agentless has no such limitations. If it did, that would be the big killer right there.
How is it horrible? This is what KVM uses and promotes on every subject. Mount your disks to your VM and restore whatever you need.
Or restore the entire damn thing to the last backup.
No, that's a fallback when not using agentless backups. It's okay when you are just doing something for free. But when you are looking at enterprise products and paying for good backup systems, you should not be constrained in that way. And with good agentless, you are not. With crappy agentless, sure. but crappy anything is crappy.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Agent and Agentless Backups:
@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.
Sure, but I've done agent based that is the same. So that's moot. That's just an anecdote that agentless can work. No one doubts that, so pointing it out has no purpose. Agent can work too. And either can not work.
Sounds like you had one bad experience with a bad backup and coincidentally it used agents. You had another good experience, and it coincidentally used agentless. And instead of associating the good setup to teh IT team or the products, you associated it with the approach.
I've not made any point to state that agent or agentless has had good or bad experiences. I'm stating that agentless is often the best solution based on a myriad of consideration points.
Cost, complexity, ease of use to name just a few. You're stating that ease of use should qualify to fire whoever opt'd for the "click and restore" system.
-
@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:
@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.
Sure, but I've done agent based that is the same. So that's moot. That's just an anecdote that agentless can work. No one doubts that, so pointing it out has no purpose. Agent can work too. And either can not work.
Sounds like you had one bad experience with a bad backup and coincidentally it used agents. You had another good experience, and it coincidentally used agentless. And instead of associating the good setup to teh IT team or the products, you associated it with the approach.
I've not made any point to state that agent or agentless has had good or bad experiences. I'm stating that agentless is often the best solution based on a myriad of consideration points.
Cost, complexity, ease of use to name just a few. You're stating that ease of use should qualify to fire whoever opt'd for the "click and restore" system.
But my original point was that it did not aid in cost or complexity. Because it's not that simply. My number one concern was that people think that it is that simple because it is agentless and that's the biggest risk!
I don't know a single shop that I've worked with in years now that had an environment where agentless could be used reliably in that way. They all have workloads, important ones, that require way more than point and shoot backup strategies. Lots do it anyway, because they don't take the time to research reliable backups.
