Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+degrading\s+over\s+time\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Performance\s+degrading\s+over\s+time\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:55:16 +0100 (CET); Hi all! We finally found the culprit, yet have to decide what to do about it. Seems like Oracle likes to create a lot of small ".trc" files over time. The filesystem in question is littered with thou; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00049.html (12,363 bytes)
2. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:04:27 +0100 (CET); Precisely. In all multi-client installations I run in my own network I have holding-disks, so dumps can be run in parallel and output buffered. But the machine in question is a one-server-client inst; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00050.html (12,829 bytes)
3. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:55:13 +0100 (CET); Hello! Aggreed - cat/dd >/dev/tape will surely be fast enough. But I need a holding disk at least as large as my largest FS to dump? So if I have one 170 GB RAID I need one 170 GB holding disk? The c; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00052.html (12,833 bytes)
4. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: Frank Smith <fsmith AT hoovers DOT com>; Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:05:00 -0600; Probably, then your tapedrive can keep streaming (could half your backuptime!), and amanda can do much more parallel then it can do without holdingdisk (another doubling or more if you have many clie; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00053.html (13,947 bytes)
5. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: Niall O Broin <niall AT magicgoeshere DOT com>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:19:45 +0000; No - you need a holding disk preferrably as big as your TWO largest disklist entries, which may be <= your largest FS. From "Using Amanda" ] Ideally, there should be enough holding disk space for the; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00054.html (12,456 bytes)
6. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:26:26 +0100 (CET); Hi! OK. Understood - finally. How do you fit cheap IDE drives into a Sun Enterprise 3500? Configuration of the machine: 1 internal 9 GB (system) drive 1 external Sun Storedge A1000 RAID enclosure - 1; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00055.html (12,761 bytes)
7. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Anthony A. D. Talltree" <aad AT verio DOT net>; Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:27:27 -0800 (PST); I see that IBM has SCSI disks available up to at least 146G. I'd recommend plunking in two of those instead so you have room to grow.; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-11/msg00057.html (11,124 bytes)
8. Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:02:15 +0100 (CET); Hi all! We have a database server that is backed up daily using Amanda to a dedicated tape drive. Sun E3500 Sun E1000 RAID, ~170 GB of storage LTO tape connected to LVD controller One and only applic; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00568.html (12,115 bytes)
9. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: Wayne Johnson <wdtj AT yahoo DOT com>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:09:37 -0800 (PST); I'm not an expert in UFS, but could the drive be getting fragmented? Are you running with compression, and could the data in the database be getting more chaotic, thus increasing the size (as well as; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00571.html (13,546 bytes)
10. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:01:43 +0100 (CET); Hi all! But why - of course! Unfortunately the big expensive Sun/Oracle system was neither designed nor sold by us. We just "inherited" the system when problems started. The backup concept of the ori; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00572.html (13,237 bytes)
11. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:58:22 -0500; Partially commenting to others replies too. Any reason to not do full dumps only then. Might make estimate phase faster. Have you compared reports about which phase(s) are slower? Fragmentation is mu; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00573.html (13,100 bytes)
12. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: "Patrick M. Hausen" <hausen AT punkt DOT de>; Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:43:30 +0100 (CET); Hi all! The dump time is increasing way beyond the growth rate of data to be dumped. See below. As you can see from April up until August the dumpsize increased about 1.5 fold while the dump _time_ i; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00592.html (20,055 bytes)
13. Re: Performance degrading over time? (score: 1): Author: Frank Smith <fsmith AT hoovers DOT com>; Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:38:21 -0600; As you can see from April up until August the dumpsize increased about 1.5 fold while the dump _time_ increased by a factor of about 2.5. Dump rate dropped from 7.5 K/s to 4.6 K/s. From August until; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2002-10/msg00597.html (20,584 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]