1753563 Members
6059 Online
108796 Solutions
New Discussion юеВ

Backup performance

 
Stefan Huber
Frequent Advisor

Backup performance

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
I'm from Switzerland, but somehow ended up in Winnipeg
9 REPLIES 9
skt_skt
Honored Contributor

Re: Backup performance

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).
whiteknight
Honored Contributor

Re: Backup performance

Stefan,

Are you on 11.23 platform ? with JFS 4.1 ?

just want to confirm that

WK
Problem never ends, you must know how to fix it
Stefan Huber
Frequent Advisor

Re: Backup performance

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
I'm from Switzerland, but somehow ended up in Winnipeg
Hasan  Atasoy
Honored Contributor

Re: Backup performance

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.
Stefan Huber
Frequent Advisor

Re: Backup performance

Hi

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

Thanks a lot anyway!


Best regards
Stefan
I'm from Switzerland, but somehow ended up in Winnipeg
Stefan Huber
Frequent Advisor

Re: Backup performance

Closed.
I'm from Switzerland, but somehow ended up in Winnipeg
Hein van den Heuvel
Honored Contributor

Re: Backup performance

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

skt_skt
Honored Contributor

Re: Backup performance

yes, that would be intersting to know.
Stefan Huber
Frequent Advisor

Re: Backup performance

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
I'm from Switzerland, but somehow ended up in Winnipeg