Saturday, December 19, 2015

Veeam 9 and StoreOnce Catalyst

HPE has offered their StoreOnce deduplication platform as a free, 1TB virtual appliance for some time (the appliance is also available for licensed 5TB and 10TB variants). As a competitor for other dedupe backup targets, it offers similar protocols and features: virtual tape library, SMB (although they persist in calling it CIFS), NFS...and a proprietary protocol branded as Catalyst.
StoreOnce protocols
Catalyst is part of a unified protocol from HPE that ties together several different platforms, allowing "dedupe once, replicate anywhere" functionality. Like competing protocols, Catalyst also provides some performance improvements for both reads and writes as compared to "vanilla" file protocols.

Veeam has supported the StoreOnce platform since v8, but only through SMB (err... CIFS?) protocol. With the immanent release of Veeam 9—with support for Catalyst—I decided to give the free product a try and see how it works with v8, v9, and what the upgrade/migration process looks like.

HPE offers the StoreOnce VSA in several variants (ESXi stand-alone, vCenter-managed and Hyper-V) and is very easy to deploy, configure and use through its integrated browser-based admin tool. Adding a storage pool is as simple as attaching a 1TB virtual disk to the VM (ideally, on a secondary HBA) before initialization.

Creating SMB shares is trivial, but if the appliance is configured to use Active Directory authentication, share access must be configured through the Windows Server Manager MMC snap-in; while functional, it's about as cumbersome as one might think. StoreOnce owners would be well-served if HPE added permission/access functionality into the administrative console. Using local authentication eliminates this annoyance, and is possibly the better answer for a dedicated backup appliance...but I digress.

StoreOnce fileshare configuration
Irrespective of the authentication method configured on the appliance, local authentication is the only option for Catalyst stores, which are also trivial to create & configure. In practice, the data stored in a Catalyst store is not visible or accessible via file or VTL protocols—and vice-versa; at least one competing platform of which I'm familiar doesn't have this restriction. This functional distinction does make it more difficult to migrate stored data from one protocol to another; among other possible scenarios, this is particularly germane when an existing StoreOnce+Veeam user wishes to upgrade from v8 to v9 (presuming StoreOnce is also running a firmware version that is supported for Veeam's Catalyst integration) and has a significant amount of data in the file share "side" of the StoreOnce. A secondary effect is that there is no way to utilize the Catalyst store without a Catalyst-compatible software product: in my case, ingest is only possible using Veeam, whether it's one of the backup job functions or the in-console file manager.

Veeam 9 file manager
As of this writing, I have no process for performing the data migration from File to Catalyst without first transferring the data to an external storage platform that can be natively managed by Veeam's "Files" console. Anyone upgrading from Veeam 8 to Veeam 9 will see the existing "native" StoreOnce repositories converted to SMB repositories; as a side effect, file-level management of the StoreOnce share is lost. Any new Catalyst stores can be managed through the Veeam console, but the loss of file-management for the "share side" means there is no direct transfer possible. Data must be moved twice in order migrate from File to Catalyst; competing platforms that provide simultaneous access via file & "proprietary" protocols allow migration through simple repository rescans.

Administrative negatives aside, the StoreOnce platform does a nice job of optimizing storage use with good dedupe ratios. Prior to implementing StoreOnce (with Veeam 8, so only SMB access), I was using Veeam-native compression & deduplication on a Linux-based NAS device. With no other changes to the backup files, migrating them from the non-dedupe NAS to StoreOnce resulted in an immediate 2x deduplication ratio; modifying the Veeam jobs to dedupe appliance-aware settings (eg, no compression at storage) saw additional gains in dedupe efficiency. After upgrading to Veeam 9 (as a member of a partner organization, I have early to the RTM build)—and going through the time-consuming process of migrating the folders from File to Catalyst—my current status is approaching 5x, giving me the feeling that dedupe performance may be superior on the Catalyst stores as compared to File shares. As far as I'm concerned, this is already pretty impressive dedupe performance (given that the majority of the job files are still using sub-optimal settings) and I'm looking forward to increasing performance as the job files cycle from the old settings to dedupe appliance-optimized as retention points are aged out.

Appliance performance during simultaneous read, write operations
StoreOnce appliance performance will be variable, based not only on the configuration of the VM (vCPU, memory) but also on the performance of the underlying storage platform; users of existing StoreOnce physical appliances will have a fixed level of performance based on the platform/model. Users of the virtual StoreOnce appliance can inject additional performance into the system by upgrading the underlying storage (not to mention more CPU or memory, as dictated by the capacity of the appliance) to a higher performance tier.

Note: Veeam's deduplication appliance support—which is required for Catalyst—is only available with Enterprise (or Enterprise Plus) licensing. The 60-day trial license includes all Enterprise Plus features and can be used in conjunction with the free 1TB StoreOnce appliance license to evaluate this functionality in your environment, whether you are a current Veeam licensee or not.

Update

With the official release of Veeam B&R v9, Catalyst and StoreOnce are now available to those of you holding the Enterprise B&R licenses. I will caution you, however, to use a different method of converting from shares to Catalyst than I used. Moving the files does work, but it's not a good solution: you don't get to take advantage of the per-VM backup files that is a feature of v9 (if a backup starts with a monolithic file, it will continue to use it; only creating a new backup—or completely deleting the existing files—will allow per-VM files to be created. This is the preferred format for Catalyst, and the dedupe engine will work more efficiently with per-VM files than it will with monolithic files; I'm sure there's a technical reason for it, but I can vouch for it in practice. Prior to switching to per-VM files, my entire backup footprint, even after cycling through the monolithic files to eliminate dedupe-unfriendly elements like job-file compression, consumed over 1TB of raw storage with a dedupe ratio that never actually reached 5:1. After discarding all those jobs and starting fresh with cloned jobs and per-VM files, I now have all of my backups & restore points on a single 1TB appliance with room to spare and a dedupe ratio currently above 5:1.


I'm still fine-tuning, but I'm very pleased with the solution.

7 comments:

  1. Great post Jim! We would love you to add your expert opinions to IT Central Station to help other users looking into StoreOnce and other solutions. http://www.itcentralstation.com/products/hp-storeonce

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello, how did you copy files to Catalyst? Info like for dummies :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. copy paste - works. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. The Files section of the v9 console will allow you to perform most manipulations. Rename isn't one of them, and I've submitted at least one defect to Veeam regarding the removal of backups, but it's otherwise functional.

      Delete
  3. Hi Jim. thanks for this article.
    Could you elaborate on how you accomplished "—and going through the time-consuming process of migrating the folders from File to Catalyst—"
    HPE@goodwillny.org

    ReplyDelete
  4. Figured it out, no problem Jim. Actualy an image in your writing suggests it.
    Very good article, thanks.

    ReplyDelete