Hi guys,
I do not think any times are wrong nor is there a bug, see example.
PS: How do I look up individual sessions for a given backup?
Example:
Here's how I thought the numbers were arrived at:
say processing starts at time zero and runs for 1 hour, 3600 s, just to make it
easy, and we backup 100 GB. We also use two streams 50 GB total each, and they
run concurrently. %75 of the time is spent sending data, %25 processing
overhead.
So:
total time: 3600 s
total bytes: 100 GB
aggregate is: 100 * 1024 mb / 3600 = 28 MB /s
data transfer time: .75 * 3600 * 2 = 5400 s
network throughput is: 100 * 1024 / 5400 = 18 MB / s
I think what I meant to say was the network pipe is really _wide_. The network
can sustain multiple streams running at full speed. The limiting speed factor
may be the server or it may be the network, but I don't think it matters where
the speed bottleneck is. So I still don't think it is a bug.
Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Miles Purdy
Miles Purdy
System Manager
Farm Income Programs Directorate
Winnipeg, MB, CA
purdym AT fipd.gc DOT ca
ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557
"If you hold a UNIX shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>>> Robin_Sharpe AT BERLEX DOT COM 28-Dec-01 9:56:57 PM >>>
>>> Robin_Sharpe AT BERLEX DOT COM 28-Dec-01 9:56:57 PM >>>
As I said a while ago, I think it's a bug. I'm guessing that this is a
multi stream backup (I think that has already been established), and the
data transfer time is the total of all of the sessions, but the elapsed
time is for only one session... can you confirm that Miles? Hopefully you
still have records for those sessions in the summary table.
Robin Sharpe
Berlex Labs
"Zlatko
Krastev/ACIT"
<acit@ATTGLOB To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
AL.NET> cc: (bcc: Robin Sharpe/WA/USR/SHG)
Subject:
12/27/01 Re: Please Explain (again)
07:30 PM
Please
respond to
"ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager"
Sorry, I am taking my words back. Have a look again at the times reported
Data transfer time: 8 261.61 sec
Elapsed processing time: 01:25:00
This 8261 seconds is definitely much more than 1h25m (5100s) and one of the
times is erroneous. Divided by wrong value you're getting one of the rates
wrong.
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Zlatko Krastev/ACIT AT attglobal DOT net>
22.12.2001 23:55
Sent by: Zlatko Krastev/ACIT<acit AT attglobal DOT net>
To: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
cc:
Subject: Re: Please Explain
If your network capacity "greatly exceeds the clients ability to send data"
then your network rate should "greatly exceed" the data read (on the node)
and write (on the server) rate. Consequently aggregate rate has also to be
"greatly exceeded". The only explanation I can find to the numbers you're
seeing is that the speed of the SP Switch is incorrectly counted in MHz not
in MB/s. And later those MHz are converted as usual serial Ethernet in
MB/s. Because SP Switch running at low frequency gives high throughput your
network rate is displayed wrong.
Zlatko Krastev
IT Consultant
Miles Purdy <PURDYM AT FIPD.GC DOT CA> on 20.12.2001 17:26:13
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Please Explain
I don't think it is a bug. I think is because my network (SP Switch)
capacity greatly exceeds the clients ability to send data (even though is
an S80). If in effect I'm running 2,3,4,5 backups concurrently.
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4952I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects inspected: 135 487
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4954I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects backed up: 2 309
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4958I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects updated: 0
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4960I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects rebound: 0
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4957I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects deleted: 0
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4970I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects expired: 13 138
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4959I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of objects failed: 0
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4961I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Total
number of bytes transferred: 60.53 GB
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4963I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Data
transfer time: 8 261.61 sec
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4966I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Network
data transfer rate: 7 682.73 KB/sec
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4967I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Aggregate
data transfer rate: 12 445.33 KB/sec
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4968I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Objects
compressed by: 0%
12/19/01 14:25:28 ANE4964I (Session: 14442, Node: UNXP) Elapsed
processing time: 01:25:00
Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Miles Purdy
Miles Purdy
System Manager
Farm Income Programs Directorate
Winnipeg, MB, CA
purdym AT fipd.gc DOT ca
ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557
"If you hold a UNIX shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>>> Robin Sharpe AT BERLEX DOT COM 20-Dec-01 8:20:26 AM >>>
>>> Robin Sharpe AT BERLEX DOT COM 20-Dec-01 8:20:26 AM >>>
I don't see how aggregate rate could exceed network rate. Aggregate is
Bytes Transferred divided by Elapsed Time, and Network is Bytes Transferred
divided by Data Transfer Time.... what were those values in the session
where Aggregate was greater than Network? How could Data Transfer Time be
greater than Elapsed Time? Must be a bug!
Robin Sharpe
Berlex Labs
Miles Purdy
<PURDYM@FIPD.
GC.CA> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc: (bcc: Robin Sharpe/WA/USR/SHG)
12/20/01 Subject:
08:44 AM Re: Please Explain
Please
respond to
"ADSM: Dist
Stor Manager"
The network transfer rate is the time is takes to send the file to be
backed up to the TSM server.
The aggregate is the total KB backed up / the total time.
The difference is the processing time. The time to contact the TSM server
and check if the file needs to be backed up.
Interestingly enough, my aggregate usually exceeds the network, I was
asking yesterday if any one else sees this.
Miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Miles Purdy
Miles Purdy
System Manager
Farm Income Programs Directorate
Winnipeg, MB, CA
purdym AT fipd.gc DOT ca
ph: (204) 984-1602 fax: (204) 983-7557
"If you hold a UNIX shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
>>> rouzen AT UNIV.HAIFA.AC DOT IL 20-Dec-01 4:45:16 AM >>>
>>> rouzen AT UNIV.HAIFA.AC DOT IL 20-Dec-01 4:45:16 AM >>>
Hi
I run a full backup of a Netware 5 with Tivoli client 4.2.0 here the
statistics:
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects inspected: 33,310
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects backed up: 33,104
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects updated: 0
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects rebound: 0
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects deleted: 0
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects expired: 0
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of objects failed: 3
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Total number of bytes transferred: 1.33 GB
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Data transfer time: 138.38 sec
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Network data transfer rate: 10,099.94 KB/sec
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Aggregate data transfer rate: 802.25 KB/sec
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Objects compressed by: 0%
12/18/2001 13:58:12 Elapsed processing time: 00:29:02
Can anybody explain why my Network data transfer rate is so high but my
Aggregate data transfer rate is low !!!!!!!!!!!!
T.I.A Regards
Robert Ouzen
E-mail: rouzen AT univ.haifa.ac DOT il
|
