Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository
-
@dustinb3403 - I am going to try it and see what happens lol
-
Just gibberish...
-
Same issue here @scottalanmiller
-
@wrx7m said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
Thanks for the replies, @DustinB3403 and @scottalanmiller - I would have just chalked it up to a QNAP problem and using RAID5 (in this scenario made no sense to me) but like you said, he mentions an entire "category" of technology.
It is not a QNAP problem. Just like Anton said, it's a NAS problem...
Go watch his VeeamON 2017 preso, he spent sometime talking about why this is a problem.
https://www.veeam.com/veeamon/free-sessions?wvideo=29o75n2ygf -
@fateknollogee said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
@wrx7m said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
Thanks for the replies, @DustinB3403 and @scottalanmiller - I would have just chalked it up to a QNAP problem and using RAID5 (in this scenario made no sense to me) but like you said, he mentions an entire "category" of technology.
It is not a QNAP problem. Just like Anton said, it's a NAS problem...
In what way is it a NAS problem? The problem affects servers, NAS, SAN, and everything else exactly the same. In the example, it is RAID 5 that is the issue and is literally just the end user didn't implement a RAID system while knowing how storage works. What they are talking about in the article is URE and NAS is not a factor.
-
@fateknollogee said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
@wrx7m said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
Thanks for the replies, @DustinB3403 and @scottalanmiller - I would have just chalked it up to a QNAP problem and using RAID5 (in this scenario made no sense to me) but like you said, he mentions an entire "category" of technology.
It is not a QNAP problem. Just like Anton said, it's a NAS problem...
Go watch his VeeamON 2017 preso, he spent sometime talking about why this is a problem.
https://www.veeam.com/veeamon/free-sessions?wvideo=29o75n2ygfHere is the quote: "He found that if a drive fails in a RAID 5 array, the QNAP device will resort to recalculating the missing data, causing errors in calculations and corrupting data. If the failed drive is replaced, it will use the same calculations to repopulate the drive with corrupted data." If the errors come from URE, then the issue affects all systems regardless of what they are. If the issue was a firmware bug, then it is QNAP specific. Nothing in the article would lead to any correlation that "NAS are riskier" than other things.
-
Later in the article: "QNAP issued a firmware update in April that fixed the flaw. However, the vendor made no mention of the corruption flaw in its release notes."
Given that they were able to fix it, we know that it can't be a NAS issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
@fateknollogee said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
@wrx7m said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
Thanks for the replies, @DustinB3403 and @scottalanmiller - I would have just chalked it up to a QNAP problem and using RAID5 (in this scenario made no sense to me) but like you said, he mentions an entire "category" of technology.
It is not a QNAP problem. Just like Anton said, it's a NAS problem...
In what way is it a NAS problem? The problem affects servers, NAS, SAN, and everything else exactly the same. In the example, it is RAID 5 that is the issue and is literally just the end user didn't implement a RAID system while knowing how storage works. What they are talking about in the article is URE and NAS is not a factor.
How 'bout you just go watch the video?
-
@fateknollogee said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
@wrx7m said in Synology NAS for Veeam Backup Repository:
Thanks for the replies, @DustinB3403 and @scottalanmiller - I would have just chalked it up to a QNAP problem and using RAID5 (in this scenario made no sense to me) but like you said, he mentions an entire "category" of technology.
It is not a QNAP problem. Just like Anton said, it's a NAS problem...
Go watch his VeeamON 2017 preso, he spent sometime talking about why this is a problem.
https://www.veeam.com/veeamon/free-sessions?wvideo=29o75n2ygfI'm in that audience for that video
-
If you know what the issue is with NAS, it would be really handy if you would just tell us instead of sending us off to long videos in the hopes that we find something in them that backs up your claim. What exactly does he claim about NAS, because it doesn't matter what it is, it's wrong. NAS isn't a "thing" that can be a problem in this way. But without knowing what you think he said, how do we know what to look for?
-
Hour and a half video, I turned it off. Bottom line, NAS can't be the issue. This is basic storage knowledge. If Veeam is making that claim, we have a major issue and we need to let someone at Veeam know that they have someone key making obviously incorrect statements about the technology.
-
Veeam DOES recommended avoiding low end NAS devices, and recommends SAN over NAS because Veeam wants block protocols. These parts are true and we don't need to watch videos as they are available in writing from @Rick-Vanover - we even have the author of the best practices here in the community!
https://www.veeam.com/blog/vmware-backup-repository-configuration-best-practices.html
The keys here are "low end" which is an issue around support. The misleading bit is that NAS means server, so low end servers are every bit affected in the same ways. The QNAP, Synology, ReadyNAS and other such devices are not actually NAS but Unified Storage, SAN as much as NAS. That Veeam recommends SAN instead of NAS is a protocol choice, it does not make those devices any less applicable. We should not be calling them NAS, as that is misleading, they are equally both.
If we really look at the guidance and consider what it could mean, the only real concern is "low end" and low end is always of some concern. Why spend so much on Veeam and Windows licensing and then get cheap on the hardware? You want solid storage hardware and solid support. But nothing here is telling us that there is anything wrong at all with these kinds of devices and certainly the issue is not some kind of corruption caused by the fact that they are in this product category.
