I’ve cast my vote based on v10, not based on the promises of v11 as I’ve not been able to play with them yet (waiting on that sweet v11 beta access).

It’s definitely a case of “your mileage will vary”, I think using XFS and ReFS are great resources that are easily accessible for customers regardless of budget but I encourage people to think about speed of recoverability when looking at these targets as traditionally deduplication devices haven’t provided the best performance with rehydration (there’s another thread on this site whereby someone was vouching for Quantum DXi not having these short comings but I haven’t used it myself to comment further).

I won't put in a primary backup target that I can’t get good performance for Instant VM recovery / SureBackup, those are critical in my perspective as Instant VM recovery is my default recovery model.

Also when looking at ReFS, definitely make sure you’ve got a RAID Controller that is certified.

Like @MicoolPaul I also voted for v10: ReFS. But I am quite sure in a few month from new I will vote for XFS repositories.

I also go for ReFS for the moment as we use/deploy for long time and didn’t experience any problems. Also if you need tape then your backup/repository server will proably run with Windows.

Let’s wait for some results with v11 and immutability. Perhaps this will give me the chance to learn some Linux.

I voted for ReFS, too.

We are using this in many environments and didn’t have any problems up to now.

When you have retention times of 90 days with daily backups and weekly synthetic fulls you are saving huge amounts of storage. In one environment there is nearly twice the amount of the available physical storage in a repository.

Sure with immutability Linux repo XFS first target :D

I mostly use LUN-RDM Win Refs as a backup repo.