Re: [Veritas-bu] Alternate Network Interfaces

2010-09-14 17:03:38
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Alternate Network Interfaces
From: <Rusty.Major AT sungard DOT com>
To: "Infantino, Joseph" <jinfanti AT harris DOT com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:03:29 -0500

I would agree, try bonding/teaming the NICs together to get more bandwidth. Don't forget to investigate your network to make sure that you don't have any other bottlenecks inline and that the clients are all set to 100/full (assuming they are 100Mbit).

Rusty Major, MCSE, BCFP, VCS ▪ Sr. Storage Engineer ▪ SunGard Availability Services ▪ 757 N. Eldridge Suite 200, Houston TX 77079 ▪ 281-584-4693
Keeping People and Information Connected® ▪
P Think before you print
CONFIDENTIALITY:  This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited.  If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.

"Infantino, Joseph" <jinfanti AT harris DOT com>
Sent by: <veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>

09/14/2010 03:50 PM

Heathe Yeakley <hkyeakley AT gmail DOT com>, NetBackup Mailing List <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Re: [Veritas-bu] Alternate Network Interfaces

Have you thought about "bonding" the nics of the media server(s)?  If your switches can handle lacp then you can 'bond' 2 nics and get twice the throughput.  As long as your other resources are not maxed out this can help out a lot.  We were missing windows all the time until we enabled this on each media server.

We also set a specific media server to handle the backup instead of leaving the option at "Any Available".  All of our Storage Units are set to "On Demand Only"

Thank you,

Joseph A. Infantino II
BackUp/Recovery Administrator

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Heathe Yeakley
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:17 PM
To: NetBackup Mailing List
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Alternate Network Interfaces

My Fellow Admins,

I have a backup environment comprised of a single RHEL 5 Master server
(which doubles as a media server) and a single dedicated media server,
also running RHEL 5. These 2 servers are backing up a small
environment of approximately 100 servers with a combined weekly backup
volume of about 20 - 30 terabytes.

On each server, I only have 1 of the available 4 NICs configured. Each
morning I come in and a handful of my larger boxes are still running
and getting terrible throughput.

I've looked at CPU, memory and other statistics on the box, and it
doesn't look like I'm overloading my master and/or media server. I
think it's simply a case of my 1 NIC per box is getting saturated
during my backup window and each of my clients isn't getting a lot of
throughput to whichever machine is backing it up.

I have asked my network team to please run a second cable to the
second NIC on each box. I've brought both NICs online. I have selected
1 solaris 10 client in my backup environment that I want to try and
send all its backup traffic to the second interface on whichever box
ends up backing it up and night.

I've scanned through the NetBackup admin guide for Unix/Linux and I've
browsed the knowledgebase on Symantec's website for ideas on how to do
this. I've seend two or three ways to do it and I'm trying to figure
out which one best suits what I'm trying to do.

This first KB article I read is:

which suggests going into Global attributes and setting "Use Specified
Network Interface" on the client. My question is, I have two different
interfaces I could potentially use: the 2nd NIC on my master or the
second NIC on my media server. This box implies I can only put in one
interface. Since it's a crap shoot which media server will get the
task of backing the machine up, I'm not sure if this is the option for
what I want to do.

Then I found this article:

Which talks about the REQUIRED_INTERFACE directive in the
/usr/openv/volmgr/vm.conf file.But upon reading the technote, that
doesn't sound quite like what I'm trying to do.

Any ideas?

- Heathe Kyle Yeakley
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu

Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>