Re: [Networker] What does good LTO3 performance look like?
2008-02-19 10:16:28
On 19 Feb 08, at 1349, Fazil.Saiyed AT anixter DOT com wrote:
Hello,
If you were to eliminate hardware bottlenecks, i wonder if using
compression directive might improve backup performance ?
That's an interesting point. We're using zfs compression, which is
obviously uncompressed as it comes up from the filesystem, then runs
uncompressed over the wire and is then compressed by the LTO3
drives. It might indeed be worth playing with doing the compression
within networker and sending it to a non-compressing device.
Are you using AFTD atall, if not perhaps a VTL or AFTD may also be
worth a try.
Most of our backup is indeed to AFTD, or is done with replication.
What I'm sending to tape is ~20TB of replicated data: we replicate
from our live fileserver to an offsite clone, and then back up the
offsite clone back into an on-site tape library for long-term
retention. So performance isn't a big deal: I've doing 200GB/hour,
say 4TB/day allowing for tape changes and random factors, and I need
to do 20TB/month. So I've got a safety factor of six.
Using Jumbo frames if your GigE supports would yield the best results.
Interesting: we've had very limited benefits from jumbo frames with
modern switches and TCP stacks: ~5% at best. What's other peoples'
experience been?
ian
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
|
|
|