An example for a Veeam backup repository using Windows 2016

142 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 142 Email -- 142 Flares ×

In my previous article Windows 2016 and Storage Spaces as a Veeam backup repository I talked about the advantages that Veeam Backup & Replication can bring when combined with Windows Server 2016 and the new ReFS 3.1 filesytem. Several people have asked already about some practical examples about how to design a solution using these technologies, so I thought it was time to give you one storage design.

One warning: as in many situations, this is just ONE of the possible design solutions that can be created. It’s not meant to be the official design that Veeam is suggesting to everyone, as it has many advantages but also some limits. For example, ReFS as of today has no support for deduplication, so if you are storing many virtual machine backups and you still want to leverage global deduplication, you may want to use a different solution, like a deduplication appliance or leverage NTFS and Windows Data Deduplication. Also, I’ve used as in the past ThinkMate as the source for my simulations. I have NO relationship with them, nor I get any fee for suggesting their products. It’s just that they have a nice website where you can configure servers with multiple combinations. You can ask for the same design to one of your preferred vendor, as this type of server is available from any major server vendor (HP, Dell, Cisco to name the most known).

The machine

Modern servers have really high limits in terms of CPU and Memory they can hold, so there’s is no such problem anymore to split workloads over multiple servers, but still network can be a limit, and even more people have to evaluate carefully the failure domain. As long as the storage is not part of Storage Spaces Direct, so data can be replicated between multiple nodes, a single server is still a single point of failure for the data it holds. It’s not just the chance to lose data, but more frequently any downtime that a single server can have. For example, if Windows Server 2016 needs to be rebooted for maintenance, all the backups hosted on this machine will be temporarely unavailable. On the other side, each server has a starting price, that depends on the sum of chassis, cpu, memory, while disks are a variable components. The more disks we can put into a single system, the less number of chassis, cpu and memory we have to buy.

I think that servers hosting between 30 and 50 disks are a good balance, so as a starting point I chose this server:


It can hold two CPUs, 8 memory slots, 2 disks for the operating system and 36 for data. These are the components that I chose, and the reasons for the choice:

CPU: 2 * 8–core Intel E5–2640 v2. Windows 2016 licensing is per core, and initial licensing covers up to 16 cores. With two of these processors, we can have 16 concurrent incoming streams, and still be able to limit license expenses

Memory: 64 Gb. Following Veeam best practices about repository sizing, we usually recommend 4GB for each Core. Do your math, 16 cores * 4GB is 64GB.

Boot disk: a hardware Raid-1 using two Micron M1100 256GB SSD. Plenty of space and speed to host Windows 2016. Also remember, ReFS cannot be used for boot volume, so this volume will be formatted with NTFS.

Network: a dual 10Gb ethernet card is needed, as this machine can surely ingest more than 125 MBps, which is the theoretical limit of a 1 GB connection. Also, remember that the target might have data sent to it from multiple sources, so it needs to be able to handle this.


Obviously, the most interesting part of the design is the storage, and it’s also the place where you can see the advantages of using Microsoft Storage Spaces.

First of all, the storage controller. Even if the disks are going to be exposed one by one to the operating system without any raid or cache, it doesn’t mean that the underlying controller is not important anymore. On the contrary, with more than 30 disks to control, and some of them being high speed SSDs, the controller is still very important. This server is equipped with an integrated LSI 2308 SAS 2.0 6Gb/s Host Bus Adapter. This is a good controller, but if the server you are choosing has different options, please verify that it can handle a good amount of IO, and that it can expose the connected disks to the upper operating system without any raid configuration. Some of them in fact requires complex configurations like one Raid-0 volume for each disk, which is something really stupid to do and most of all maintain. It’s a good idea to check if your controller is certified for Windows Server 2016 at .

Talking about disks, we first need to talk about another great feature of Storage Spaces: Storage Tiering. By introducing two layers of storage in a server, like SSDs and HDDs, Storage Spaces can create so called Storage Tiers. With these two layers combined in a so called “hybrid” volume, data is always ingested first by the SDD tier and then Storage Spaces transparently moves blocks to the slower HDD tier. As a result, storage tiers can dramatically increase performance without sacrificing the ability to store large quantities of data on inexpensive HDDs.


Thanks to this design, incoming Veeam backups will be received by the high-speed tier, so ingestion can be massively improved. If you want to learn more, Carsten Rachfahl and Didier Van Hoye have published the video where they have tested automatic tiering, go watch it here.

NOTE: I’ve been informed that Storage Tiering is NOT supported by Microsoft in Storage Spaces over a single server, that is without Storage Spaces Direct. So, think about this hybrid storage configuration as a possible future design IF Microsoft will support this configuration.

Back to the real design. I went for 6 * 1.0TB Intel SSD DC S3100 Series 2.5″ SATA 6.0Gb/s Solid State Drive, and I will create a pool using mirror mode. This means 3 TB of SDD tier. Ideally, you would design this tier to be big enough to receive any incremental backup that is created by Veeam, so that they are all written to the fast tier, and then tiered to the capacity layer.

For the capacity layer, I choose 30 * 6.0TB SATA 6.0Gb/s 7200RPM – 3.5″ – Western Digital Se (code WD6001F9YZ). for the capacity tier I go for Dual Parity. As I explained in my previous article, this is comparable to Raid-6. Since 6TB disks take more than an entire day to be rebuilt, I’d never store data on a single parity volume. Dual parity could have some write penalty in theory, but the overall solution is not going to suffer from the random IO, first because incrementals are going to be ingested by the SSD tier (that is configured in mirror mode), but also because thanks to ReFS and blockcloning, the transform operations of Veeam backups are going to be mere metadata updates, without any real IO happening on the storage.

Also don’t make the mistake of creating a large capacity tier out of only a few large 7.2 K HHDs. To have some acceptable IOPS in the capacity tier you have to strike a balance between capacity and a sufficient number of disks. As an example, it might be better to choose 30 * 4TB HHDs instead of 15 8TB HDDs. This will help during real time tiering.

Storage Spaces works with “columns”, which can be compared to the stripe size of some storage able to do wide-striping. The maximum number of columns can be 17, which means that any block written in the capacity tier will be spread across the disks with a 15+2 schema: 15 parts for data plus 2 parts for parity. This value cannot be increased even if we have more than 17 disks. What will happen is that each block will be spread over 17 disks, and each time the disks used for a write will be different, and ultimately all of the 30 disks will be used. The efficiency is 88%, which means that out of 30 * 6GB disks, we have 180 TB of raw space but 158,40 TB of usable space.

The final result is that I have 3 TB of SSD tier and 158 TB of HDD tier. This is 161 TB of usable disk space, and the final price of such a server is 22762 USD. Add a Windows 2016 Standard license at 699 USD, and the final price is 23461 USD. Which means 4,04 USD per TB per month over a 3 years time frame, or 0,004 USD per GB. Add cooling and power, but still this is a really low price. And remember that ReFS blockcloning will give you even more space savings.


When people start discussing about public cloud storage and how much it is cheap, show them these numbers. And if you are a provider and you think you cannot compete with the hyperscale clouds, well, think again: this type of design can give you a really fast and really cheap solution to store your Veeam backup files.


142 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 142 Email -- 142 Flares ×
  • Jaycee Noob

    Thank you for this interesting article, did you go for Standard 2016 Server or Storage Server ? It seems storage edition is CPU licensed, not Core licensed and requiires no user CALs in case you need to scale up. The price tag is not so much different though.

    • I usually use the Standard license, as you said the price tag to me doesn’t justify the effort to get one of those licenses, std are so easy to be obtained.

  • Daryl Clark

    Why did you decide to go with dual parity in Windows rather than RAID 6 on the controller?

    • It’s explained in the mentioned article at the beginning of this post, with hardware raid Windows Storage Spaces cannot see the seingle disks, thus it cannot enable mirror or parity and then use integrity streams self-healing.

  • Mihkel Soomere

    Is this something you actually built? If so, could you share some performance numbers, mainly Storage Spaces write throughput as Dual Parity is notoriously slow.
    I’ve been considering similar build but with some tweaks (100GB WBC per volume, IsPowerProtected enabled to allow more throughput) in larger scenario (60 HDD + 6 SSD) also built on SuperMicro.

    • Hi Mihkel,
      we built the machine in the video that’s linked in the article, and in the video you can also see some performance tests we run against it. They are not Veeam backups, for that you may have to wait a bit more until we have the first customers using the new ReFS integration.

  • JayST

    I’m having doubts about placing SSD storage in backup targets when i look at real-life performance during backups on servers without SSD. I can easily get hundreds of MB/s ingest rate on a 2U server with 10Gbit and 12 NLSAS disks managed by a good cache-backed RAID controller in RAID6. How fast does a single server need to be to justify SSD ? I think it’s better to scale-out your performance then scale-up in performance using SSD, especially with SOBR.
    That said, SSD could be seen as a requirement of storage spaces in general as it performs very bad without it. So if you go the storage spaces route, i get it.

    Secondly, i think storage spaces does not make things simpler if you ask me. Lot’s of room for misconfiguration on multiple levels.

    How does integrity streams compare with backup health checks from Veeam B&R itself?

    • Hi,
      your point make sense, but there are situation where people may need as much speed as they need, not only for backups but also for restores (think istant vm recovery). So, if there’s a business justification behind it, a design involving SSD may be the correct choice. I agree that large stripe sets with only spinning disks can perform really well for Veeam backups.

      About integrity streams, they are already interesting for the performance, as it seems that just enabling it makes the file system work a lot faster, but the interesting point is self-healing using the other copy of a storage space volume with mirror or parity. This option cannot be replaced by any other solution, not even health checks (this is more comparable to integrity streams with only scrubbing).

  • Hi Wade,
    on systems using large disks (anything about 4TB) I’d really evaluate like you did the chance to go for dual parity to avoid the failure of a single disk bringing the entire system in an unprotected situation. Still the advantages are there, just a little bit less efficiency, but I would trade for sure efficiency with additional protection.
    About volume size, I’ve not seen any “sweet spot” so far, but since ReFS 3.1 is a young solution, I’d stay on the safe side at the beginning and avoid really big volumes.