topic Re: Backup performance in Operating System - HP-UX

Backup performance

Stefan Huber — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:47:52 GMT

Hi,

i have an L3000 Server with 4 CPU/750Mhz. and 16GigRam. The Server is connected by 2 Fiber-Cards/2GB to an CX500 with 16 Luns. At the end there are approx. 70 Disks.
I use JFS. On the Server is Oracle installed. The backup speed (DataProtector, LTO1 ) is normally good, but if I stop the database and start an normall filesystem backup the tape drive starts and stops all the time.
For me it looks that the disks are slow. I checked it by Glance and the disk i/o is really bad.
Best regards
Stefan

Re: Backup performance

skt_skt — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:37:59 GMT

any error message when tape drive stops while performing the FS backup?

On the glance what did u exactly looked at?

is the db configured on a cooked FS or as raw volume?What are u backing up on normal file system?

what happes if you just fire a backup with a little amount of data to be backed up(while database down).

Re: Backup performance

whiteknight — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:54:10 GMT

Stefan,

Are you on 11.23 platform ? with JFS 4.1 ?

just want to confirm that

WK

Re: Backup performance

Stefan Huber — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:11:14 GMT

Hi all

the fs is vxfs version 4. Ibackup normal dbf's.
The platform is 11.11.

It seems for me that a cacheing problem exists.

Best regards

Stefan

Re: Backup performance

Hasan Atasoy — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:28:14 GMT

hi ;
if you have small number of filesystem , you cannot feed tape so tape stops and starts ;
in oracle online integration you can feed tha tape because instead of fs you will be sending datafiles and concurrency will be high than fs. it is normal behaivour.

mathmad.

Re: Backup performance

Stefan Huber — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:36:17 GMT

Hi

the problem is solved.
There was an oversized kernel parameter.
....

Thanks a lot anyway!

Best regards
Stefan

Re: Backup performance

Stefan Huber — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:06:48 GMT

Closed.

Re: Backup performance

Hein van den Heuvel — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:24:32 GMT

Stefan,

You wrote: "the problem is solved.
There was an oversized kernel parameter."

Please elaborate a little bit more?
First and foremost WHICH parameter(s)?
What old/new values?
What was the indication / trigger used to consider that parameter might be wrong?

Regards,
Hein

Re: Backup performance

skt_skt — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:20:44 GMT

yes, that would be intersting to know.

Re: Backup performance

Stefan Huber — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:54:51 GMT

Hi all,
first of all, I am not a kernel tuning expert.
Here are the parms which have been changed:

Name Old value New Value
maxdsiz_64bit 4294967296 2147483648
Maxfiles 8192 2048
Maxssiz_64bit 268435456 1073741824
Maxtsiz 67108864 268435456
Maxuprc 4000 3686
Maxusers 256 48
Nclist 868 4196
Ncsize 22832 13528
Nfile 258000 124928
Ninode 17712 8408
Npty 4608 60
Nstrpty 3248 60
Semmnu 1024 4096
Shmseg 512 120

Best regards
Stefan