Networker

Re: [Networker] Indexes of Unusual Size

2011-02-09 03:35:37
Subject: Re: [Networker] Indexes of Unusual Size
From: "Abad Uriarte, Arkaitz" <arkaitz.abad AT EHU DOT ES>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 09:35:05 +0100
Hello,

We have 83 G size index on one of our clients. Is big, but is possible.

Arkaitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARKAITZ ABAD URIARTE

Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea              Email: arkaitz.abad @ehu.es
Bizkaiko I.I.S.I.G                         Tel. : 94 601 8390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurreztu papera. E-posta hau inprimatu beharra daukazu?



Matthew Huff <mhuff AT OX DOT COM> escribió:

If you are doing differentials/incrementals the index size is also related to the rate of changes on the files. Two filesystems with the same number of files, but one where a large number of files change daily can easily have 2x size of the index.


-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On Behalf Of tbirkenbach
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:41 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Indexes of Unusual Size

For most of my NetWorker clients, index size is between 100 and 500 MB. On the "plus size" side, I have nine clients that go from 1.2 GB to 1.7 GB. However, I have my "jumbo" client with an index size of 19 GB. I'm not sure what's average for other systems, but jumping from 5.7 GB to 19 GB tells me
something isn't right.  Any ideas on what could be causing this?

System info...
Backup host: NetWorker v7.6.1.1 Build 422 on Solaris 10 (Intel)
Client: NetWorker v7.6.1 Build 397 on Mac OS 10.6

NetWorker version was recently upgraded on the client in the (blind) hope that this would somehow effect index size (as well as the very slow performance, but that's a different question). I also recently changed the backup scheme from one full per week with daily incrementals to on full per month with daily incrementals. That seemed to curb the index size a bit, but the index is still over three times larger than the next largest system. Oddly enough, "jumbo" (the client with the large index) does not even have the most files of all the systems I backup. In fact, the system with the most files has over 19,000,000 files and is number three on the largest index size with 5.4 GB. Jumbo,
BTW, has 13,700,000 files.

Any help, insight and/or direction is greatly appreciated.

-Tom B.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by tom.birkenbach AT wmich DOT edu 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
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

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

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