Networker

Re: [Networker] Windows2003 Server - Speed-up Backup

2011-07-07 09:46:15
Subject: Re: [Networker] Windows2003 Server - Speed-up Backup
From: "Wiley, Craig" <cwiley AT PNAT DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:45:12 -0400
We had this problem as well. We have a Windows 2008 server that has an X Drive 
that has 1.2TB worth of 100k files. We solved this by creating a another 1.2 TB 
lun and use Windows Server Backup to back up the X Drive to the new drive. We 
then use Networker to backup the new Drive. It took our backup from 72 hours to 
7 hours. Plus we now have an onsite backup because of the disk to disk to tape 
solution. 

Thanks
Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On 
Behalf Of Preston de Guise
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:58 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Windows2003 Server - Speed-up Backup

On 07/07/2011, at 18:54 , jojo123 wrote:

> Dear forum-members,
> 
> we do have a Windows2003 server which has a D-Partition with 600GB and 
> ~1Million Files inside. The backup takes so long that when it trys to start 
> again, the last one is still running (daily schedule).
> 
> So I am thinking about ideas how to speed this up. Will it be possible to 
> define more savesets (for each folder instead of D:\) or to define more 
> clients with differents savesets in order to improve this situation?

It sounds like you've got a dense filesystem issue. I've got examples of how it 
can affect backup performance in this blog article - 
http://nsrd.info/blog/2009/06/17/in-lab-review-of-the-impact-of-dense-filesystems/

Generally speaking your two options are likely to be:

(a) Multiple savesets;
(b) SnapImage.

If the directory layout on your D: drive is such that it's somewhat balanced, 
and the root directories are unlikely to change, you'll likely get the 
performance improvement you want via option (a). However, that'll depend on the 
layout of your underlying disks - presumably it's RAID? If so, then you should 
be able to support at least two concurrent read sessions, maybe more depending 
on the type of RAID and the speed of the drives.

Cheers,
Preston.

--
Preston de Guise

http://nsrd.info/blog                           NetWorker Blog
http://www.enterprisesystemsbackup.com          "Enterprise Systems Backup and 
Recovery: A corporate insurance policy"

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>