Networker

Re: [Networker] Slow Win2k backup with lots of files

2006-06-07 09:42:15
Subject: Re: [Networker] Slow Win2k backup with lots of files
From: "Dewhirst, Rob" <dewey AT KU DOT EDU>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 08:41:47 -0500
(slightly reordered reply)


> Set parrellism up to 6 Viola you have a streamin' screamin' backup!

I thought this was saveset parallelism, and this was based on volumesm
which for me is one.  How do I get more parallel streams? This to me
seems like a good short term fix until I can get a better architecture
in place.


> How many CPUs if one or two consider upgrade to 4 cpus.

This system itself is admittedly pokey -- it's a 1.2 ghz dual PIII.
However, I have systems of lesser capability with more additional load
backing up

I can quite easily replace the server with a much faster one and upgrade
the OS, but I am afraid I will run into the same issue since I don't
actually see this server as overloaded.

> How much RAM memory - More = faster backups What storage 
> devices are you using (LTO2/LTO3)? This borders on religious 
> preference but check performance stats of your backup media 
> and upgrade where appropriate.

I have the options of DLTIV or SDLT.  Currently using DLTIV with the
other six clients on that server and they don't have this performance
problem.

> Is the file directory structure static or dynamic?

It does grow much, but I've never had the patience to audit the system
changes since there are so many files.  I don't think it's changing
much.

> Does your support agreement allow you to upgrade to at least 7.2?

Yes, I can upgrade to the current release if I wanted.  I was waiting to
skip on up to 7.3.1 when it was made available.

> Can you afford the Disk2Disk backup option?

Probably, but I could roll my own disk based backup much cheaper.

> With millions of file, compression is an issue. Compression 
> means CPU power, not so speed of cpu as much as number of 
> CPUs. That and Memory...

>From watching the performance stats during backup, it does not appear
that the CPU under much load at all.

> 200GB is a none issue to me as even the lowly LTO2 tape 
> drives can handle those in native format.

> To help with that you could manually set the directories 
> being backed up, but you would have to tell your staff if 
> they create new directories they should notify you. 

I unfortunately have to rule out any option that requires the users of
the data to do anything.  

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
wit 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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>