Hello Paul,
yes we have a serious performance problem here. We went from 3.1.0.6 to
3.1.0.7 on a Netware client 4.11.
Our adsm server is 3.1.2.20 (OS/390).
The backup elapsed time for 25000 files inspected (only 50 files backed up)
increased from 2 min. to 43 min.!!!
As you can see below, the first backup after installing 3.1.0.7 provoques a
general update of every file (56 min.).
A subsequent backup has no update but elapsed time stay high (43 min.)
Will this negative effect go away with the next server release (3.1.2.30)??
Thanks for any IBM help.
Rene Lambelet
Nestec SA - 55, Av. Nestle - CH-1800 Vevey
Tel: ++41'21'924'35'43 / Fax: ++41'21'924'45'89
E-Mail: rene.lambelet AT nestle DOT com
Activity Log
------------
Date and Time Message
Date and Time Message
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4952I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4952I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects inspected: 25,652
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4954I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects backed up: 148
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4958I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects updated: 0
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4960I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects rebound: 0
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4957I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects deleted: 0
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4959I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects failed: 13
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4961I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of bytes transferred: 1.40 MB
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4963I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Data transfer
time: 0.05 sec
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4966I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Network data
transfer rate: 28,874.06 KB/sec
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4967I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Aggregate
data transfer rate: 8.77 KB/sec
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4968I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Objects
compressed by: 0%
06/07/1999 03:46:53 ANE4964I (Session: 1362, Node: SRVEVN90A) Elapsed
processing time: 00:02:44
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4952I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects inspected: 25,772
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4954I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects backed up: 308
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4958I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects updated: 25,435
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4960I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects rebound: 0
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4957I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects deleted: 15
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4959I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects failed: 8
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4961I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of bytes transferred: 15.31 MB
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4963I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Data transfer
time: 3.22 sec
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4966I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Network data
transfer rate: 4,870.86 KB/sec
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4967I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Aggregate
data transfer rate: 4.64 KB/sec
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4968I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Objects
compressed by: 0%
06/10/1999 11:08:54 ANE4964I (Session: 1321, Node: SRVEVN90A) Elapsed
processing time: 00:56:16
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4952I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects inspected: 25,757
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4954I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects backed up: 14
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4958I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects updated: 0
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4960I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects rebound: 0
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4957I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects deleted: 0
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4959I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of objects failed: 16
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4961I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Total number
of bytes transferred: 414.83 KB
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4963I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Data transfer
time: 0.05 sec
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4966I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Network data
transfer rate: 8,296.64 KB/sec
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4967I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Aggregate
data transfer rate: 0.15 KB/sec
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4968I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Objects
compressed by: 0%
06/10/1999 12:06:13 ANE4964I (Session: 1361, Node: SRVEVN90A) Elapsed
processing time: 00:43:43
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Zarnowski [SMTP:vkm AT CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL DOT EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 2:45 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: NetWare performance w 3.1.0.7 client and older server
>
> This is a PTF7 NetWare performance question:
>
> Does anyone know if there are any known performance problems running the
> new 3.1.0.7 Netware client with a server earlier than 3.1.2.30? The PTF7
> client adds LFN support (yay!), but the README file indicates that the
> server needs to be at 3.1.2.30 to get the LFN support. Here's why I ask
> about performance..
>
> Our server is still at 3.1.2.13. One of our Netware users upgraded their
> client to PTF7. That evening (2 nights ago), and the evening after (last
> night), their backups slowed waay down. Like from 3-4 hours before
> upgrading to 18+ hours after upgrading. During the first incremental, all
> the files on only 1 of their volumes were "updated" (according to the
> scheduler log). Only 1 volume - none of the other volumes - did this.
> This updating took a long time. Besides that, the processing of files on
> other volumes also slowed way down. This is for files that did not
> change.
> You know, there are lines in the scheduler log indicating "nn,nnn files
> processed"? The timestamps on these were MUCH further apart on the PTF7
> client, than they were before they upgraded, indicating that it was taking
> ADSM much longer just to process files. I should state that the node was
> upgraded from a version 2 client.
>
> I can schedule an upgrade of our server, but I'd like to know if this is
> likely to solve the performance issue or if the problem lies elsewhere.
> Any thoughts from you experts out there?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> ..Paul
|
