---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08 14:39 S.SHEPPARD (SHS) Re: [ADSM-L] ADSM-L Win2K
We may have the problem on other clients, but this is the only one we
have isolated on the Gig VLAN so far. The rest are going through
multiple switches and have other issues of which we are aware.
Sam Sheppard
San Diego Data Processing Corp.
(858)-581-9668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------`
---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08 14:11 ..NETMAIL () Re: [ADSM-L] ADSM-L Win2K
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:09:26 -0500
From: "James Drozynski" <drozynsk AT US.IBM DOT COM>
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
_________________________________Top_of_Message_________________________________
Hope that does it for you. Just seems a bit strange only one client
exhibits the problem.
James Drozynski
IBM Pittsburgh Lab
11 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh Pa. 15222
Tel:412-667-4421
Fax:412-667-6975
Tie:989-4421
Sam Sheppard <SHS AT SDDPC.SANNET DOT GOV>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
02/01/2008 02:33 PM
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: [ADSM-L] ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08 11:29 S.SHEPPARD (SHS) Re: ADSM-L Win2K3 backu
Looks like the problem is with our disk pool. I ran a test directly to
LTO3 tape and performance improved dramatically, anywhere from 40 to
70MB/sec.
So, I've got my Solaris guy looking at his disk array for potential
write problems, since restore performance was not really a problem.
Thanks for all of the suggestions.
Sam Sheppard
San Diego Data Processing Corp.
(858)-581-9668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------`
---------------------------- Top of message ----------------------------
>>--> 02-01-08 08:16 ..NETMAIL () Re: [ADSM-L] Win2K3 backu
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:32:42 -0700
From: "Kelly Lipp" <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Win2K3 backup performance
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
_________________________________Top_of_Message_________________________________
Also set txnbytelimit to themaximum of 2GB (if you have a relatively new =
client 5.3 or later) and txngroupmax on the server 1024 (though that is =
not really your issue on this client but might be on clients with many =
smaller files)
=20
Upping txnbytelimit beyond the 25600 default may make a huge difference =
as you cut down on your transaction mini-commits dramatically...
=20
=20
Kelly Lipp
CTO, VP Manufacturing
STORServer, Inc.
485-B Elkton Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
www.storserver.com <http://www.storserver.com/>=20
719-266-8777
________________________________
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of David Vargas
Sent: Thu 1/31/2008 8:12 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Win2K3 backup performance
This is what I found to work with our system, with a 1Gb backup network.
* TCPWINDOWSIZE 2048 - Maximum setting
TCPWindowsize 512
* TCPBUFFSIZE 512 - Maximum setting
TCPBuffSize 255
The maximum settings
David
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Sam Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:09 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] Win2K3 backup performance
We have a Windows 2003 client running TSM 5.4.1 backing up to a Solaris
10 TSM server running the 5.4.1 server.
The client has several very large files to be backed up (300-400GB). We
are finding on a 1.3GB test file that we can only get a throughput of
about 10MB/sec (looks like 100Mb speed) even though this client is
configured on a GigE VLan. One interesting aspect just discovered is
that a restore of the same file got speeds of 37MB/sec, which is about
the same as an FTP of the same file from the client to the server.
Client, switch, and server all set to 1GB full.
At this point, I'm completely mystified as to what might be behind these
performance anomalies. I would expect much higher throughput rates on
all of these tests, but would be satisfied if the backup would just
perform at the same speed as the others.
Client options: Server Options:
TCPWindowsize 63 TCPWindowsize 131072
TCPBuffsize 32
Thanks
Sam Sheppard
San Diego Data Processing Corp.
(858)-581-9668
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for =
the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If =
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you =
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, =
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you =
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately =
by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------`
-----------------------------------------------------------------------`
|
