We've seen that some part of NetWorker or the backup process is
constrained by a single CPU. Our NW server is a Sun v880 with 4 CPUs
running Solaris 10. When we look at the CPU performance as an
aggregate, the server is not overloaded. When we looked at each CPU,
however, there was one CPU that was consistently hitting 100%
utilization. We were also hitting a bottleneck on the network (1GB
card). Do you have the tools to help you find your bottleneck?
-Teresa
-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Stuart Whitby
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:34 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Tuning Networker for multiple CPUs
Hmm. I think the whole point is that the current server should have
enough horsepower to handle this without having to look at storage nodes
etc and without having to be worried about running full backups due to
the performance impact.
There's no difference from the server side to running a full backup to
running an incremental. The only difference from a CPU cycles point of
view is the amount of data it's shifting if the data's coming back to
the server for backup. If enough servers are backing up that the
network card is 100% utilised between 8 and 10pm, then GUI performance
is going to be slow (not sure which version it is) no matter how much
bandwidth you've got. Personally, I'd be backing up critical
applications at full every night and retaining it for a short timeframe
rather than running incrementals and adding to the recovery times - good
business practice if you can get someone to pay for the necessary
drives.
As regards my previous post about limiting this by processor, this
shouldn't strictly be necessary. All process scheduling is controlled
by the OS. Some apps can have a problem with multiple processors, but
I've seen no evidence to suggest that NW's one of them.
Cheers,
Stuart.
________________________________
From: EMC NetWorker discussion on behalf of Fazil Saiyed
Sent: Tue 15/05/2007 16:56
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Tuning Networker for multiple CPUs
Hello,
Looking at your responces,it apprears perhaps managment needs to give it
a
secound thought at backup level FULL, most places there should be no
need
to do that level everyday ( There could be exceptions)
secound you would perhaps slow your server down further if you added
addtional Tape drive load to it, i am thinking there is enough Tape
power
( with multiplexing-allowed) to handle all your server load withen a
given
night, however your FULL schedule is placing extra load every night, not
sure if you use GB ethernet or not, but that may help speed up the
backups, perhaps additional storage node is a batter options in your
case.
HTH
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
|
