Around the Storage Block
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Re: HPE RMC Performance Benefits vs. Traditional Backup ISVs: Why Is RMC the Faster Solution?

Tilman

Dear Jon & Dennis,

thanks a lot. I really appreciate your comments and questions. Let me try to answer them here:
1) RMC v4.0 and pass-thru
No changes rgd. pass-thru with respect to RMC on ESXi. However, we do now support RMC(-x) being deployed on Hyper-V and that does not face the same restrictions. This really boils down to hypervisor functionality. 

2) RMC-S 
As you state, RMC-S requires the MSSQL VM to either use RDM or iSCSI/FC direct. RMC-S today does not support a SQL VM using SQL volumes on a datastore. The product management team is investigating the feasibility of adding this functionality. 
Our recommendation today is to use RMC-V whenever the SQL Server is virtualized on VMFS. You will need to use the VMtools to quiesce the application, of course, and logs will have to be truncated manually (scripting). A restore would happen via RMC-V ERT (element recovery technology). RMC-V ERT can be used in combination with the *free* Veeam Explorer for MSSQL to allow more granular restore operations. We can provide detailed slides on this in case of need. 

3) HPE StoreServ 3PAR to HPE StoreOnce direct path
We are investigating options for having a direct connection between 3PAR and StoreOnce. 

4) RMC performance vs. traditional backup ISV
In all the configurations that we have tested (and there were numerous across a broad range of applications), RMC always showed higher backup and restore performance compared to traditional backup ISVs. Reasons are - as stated in the blog:
- RMC optimizes the data path (3PAR--RMC--StoreOnce)
- RMC provides multi-streaming operations even for environments (like file systems) where traditional ISVs would not support it and/or setup would be more cumbersome
- RMC implements a unique 'snapdiff' functionality. Before a backup job starts, RMC gets the snapdiff information from 3PAR. It then only transfer the delta data and StoreOnce re-assembles pointers to create a virtual synthetic full. Traditional backup ISV might have delta tracking capabilities but not the tight product integration that RMC/3PAR provide.

 Hope this helps and provides more clarity. 

Cheers,

Tilman Walker

About the Author

Tilman

Comments
Jon11111

Has anything in RMC 4.0 improved the hba pass through requirements of both the sql servers and the rmc virtual machine? While the HBA passthrough on the virtual machine is dealable, the one that requires the sql servers themselves have pass through hbas as well as direct attached luns in a virtual environment nearly impossible to use in traditional vmware environments where disks are split out of datastores. This was the killer in our environment for usage of RMC3 for sql.

Is there a plan for direct connectivity between 3par and storeonce appliance instead of requring a proxy in the RMC virtual machine? 

 

 

Dennis Faucher

Thank you for the article. Are there any differences in Catalyst use that would make the Traditional ISV slower than RMC? 

Tilman

Dear Jon & Dennis,

thanks a lot. I really appreciate your comments and questions. Let me try to answer them here:
1) RMC v4.0 and pass-thru
No changes rgd. pass-thru with respect to RMC on ESXi. However, we do now support RMC(-x) being deployed on Hyper-V and that does not face the same restrictions. This really boils down to hypervisor functionality. 

2) RMC-S 
As you state, RMC-S requires the MSSQL VM to either use RDM or iSCSI/FC direct. RMC-S today does not support a SQL VM using SQL volumes on a datastore. The product management team is investigating the feasibility of adding this functionality. 
Our recommendation today is to use RMC-V whenever the SQL Server is virtualized on VMFS. You will need to use the VMtools to quiesce the application, of course, and logs will have to be truncated manually (scripting). A restore would happen via RMC-V ERT (element recovery technology). RMC-V ERT can be used in combination with the *free* Veeam Explorer for MSSQL to allow more granular restore operations. We can provide detailed slides on this in case of need. 

3) HPE StoreServ 3PAR to HPE StoreOnce direct path
We are investigating options for having a direct connection between 3PAR and StoreOnce. 

4) RMC performance vs. traditional backup ISV
In all the configurations that we have tested (and there were numerous across a broad range of applications), RMC always showed higher backup and restore performance compared to traditional backup ISVs. Reasons are - as stated in the blog:
- RMC optimizes the data path (3PAR--RMC--StoreOnce)
- RMC provides multi-streaming operations even for environments (like file systems) where traditional ISVs would not support it and/or setup would be more cumbersome
- RMC implements a unique 'snapdiff' functionality. Before a backup job starts, RMC gets the snapdiff information from 3PAR. It then only transfer the delta data and StoreOnce re-assembles pointers to create a virtual synthetic full. Traditional backup ISV might have delta tracking capabilities but not the tight product integration that RMC/3PAR provide.

 Hope this helps and provides more clarity. 

Cheers,

Tilman Walker

Events
June 6 - 8, 2017
Las Vegas, Nevada
Discover 2017 Las Vegas
Join us for HPE Discover 2017 in Las Vegas. The event will be held at the Venetian | Palazzo from June 6-8, 2017.
Read more
Each Month in 2017
Online
Software Expert Days - 2017
Join us online to talk directly with our Software experts during online Expert Days. Find information here about past, current, and upcoming Expert Da...
Read more
View all