Networker

[Networker] Recommended filesystem partition size

2009-09-03 16:28:24
Subject: [Networker] Recommended filesystem partition size
From: tammclaughlin <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:22:54 -0400
tkimball wrote:
> I'm going to assume the 28 TB is being used as adv_file devices, and not an 
> actual VTL.
> 


Yep.


> 
> Having smaller mounts for adv_file are useful if you'd like to keep the 
> various backups segregated using pools.  For example, I have separate disk 
> devices for my Full and Incremental backups, using different RAID groups 
> underneath.
> 
> Another advantage to multiple disk devices is that each one can then stream 
> to its own tape drive for cloning or staging, speeding up both operations (if 
> you have the same number of tape drives, and have the hardware to drive them 
> well enough from the disk).
> 
> The big thing you'll need to watch for is that each adv_file device uses two 
> device 'slots' under server/SN licensing rules.
> 
> --TSK
> 
> 


Thank for your reply.

I managed to sort out the problem with the filesystem size. I was preparing in 
case I had to create smaller (4TB partitions).
The max size of an ext3 filesystem is dependent on the filesystem block size, 
which if 16TB with a 4k block size. It tried a few options but settled on one 
16TB and one 9TB filesystems.  
On the advice of out consultant, we created directories within each partition 
which were associated with different adv_file types.


tammclaughlin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a new backup system running NW 7.1 on top of RHEL 5.1 64 bit with 28TB 
> direct attached storage and I am unsure how best to partition up the space.
> 
> Currently we back up around 4TB /month which is based on a full every week 
> with incrementals every other day.
> 
> It was suggested to create one large ext3 partition (lvm) but I encountered 
> an error while trying to resize the existing partition as I was rushing out 
> of work tonight.  I had thought that it was not possible to create a large 
> 28TB partition on ext3 but what probably happened was that I was trying to 
> resize while the partition was still mounted.  So I will pop into work early 
> tomorrow and try to resize again. 
> 
> However, is there any advantage is having smaller partition sizes?

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by tam.mclaughlin AT gmail DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------

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