- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Re: Poor performance
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 03:46 AM
тАО08-06-2004 03:46 AM
Re: Poor performance
> Backup Speed ....... 4238,18 (KB/s)
is right on for a 100Mbit link. You could try changing all the NICs and switches to 1000BaseT but now CPU/driver time may limit the maximum speed so don't expect 50Mbytes/sec, more like 30 or so. With 10000BaseT you may want to use jumbo frames but this may be incompatible with Windows.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 04:17 AM
тАО08-06-2004 04:17 AM
Re: Poor performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 05:14 AM
тАО08-06-2004 05:14 AM
Re: Poor performance
Damn it! I hate that speaking about Mbps and MBps there's always a mix up somewhere...
anyway, I know the implications of file access, open/close, TCP overhead etc...
But still its normal to get 4MB/s on a 100Mbps ?
Because okay let's put the network at 90% capacity. So 90Mbps.
90 / 8 = 11.25 MB/s
If I do a backup of a single filesystem, I never get that speed, always get 4MB/s.
That's only 32 Mbps. 32% of the network.
If I do a transfert between the 2 machines I get the 100% of the Network usage.
I know that Network are usually slow for backups, but that's the best option that my company have so far. So I need to maximize the network usage.
Anyway I'll try to get another solution in place. Because if 4MB/s is really the max I can get, I won't go anywhere. I guess that's it i'm at the maximum speed we can do.
Thanks for all your help!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 06:24 AM
тАО08-06-2004 06:24 AM
SolutionSecondly, you'll never get 90% throughput on your 100Mbit link. After you browse Rick Jones' NetPerf web pages, you'll understand more about real network performance. http://www.netperf.org/ is the place to go for LAN performance. With some TCP?IP tuning, you might improve on the 50% number but not by much.
Finally, as mentioned before, you'll probably get shoe-shine performance out of your tape drive and that will seriously affect throughput as well as prematurely wear out your tape drive. You pay a very stiff penalty for not keeping the drive busy. In the old days of reel-to-reel tapes, the drive actually started, recorded and stopped for every record (really old stuff). These drives would literally buzz as the capstan rollers and brakes did their work. Later, the drives started buffering a few Kbytes and allowed the tape to avoid the mechanical start/stop cycles and performance soared.
Then in the 80's, the concept of a streaming tape drive became a reality. No more start/stop. Instead, a small motor would slowly spin the tape up to full speed. Once at speed, data would be recorded continuously. The idea is that the computer would keep sending data fast enough to keep the tape moving. But if the computer could not keep the data coming fast enough, the tape drive would run out of data (an underrun condition) and it would have to stop, backup, take a running start again, figure out where it was on the tape, find the end of the last record and then start recording again at just the right spot.
Streamers were inexpensive nad performed well but were terrible if the data stream wasn't fast enough, and for an entire tape, you could resposition several thousand times thus causing recording head wear equivalent to several hundred tape passes without repositioning.
Now, virtually all tape drives are streamers. The difference is that they have a ENORMOUS appetite for data. The LTO-2 drive is no exception. True, these drives have bigger data buffers (many megs) but unless the data stream is slightly faster than the tape drive (measured over many seconds), the tape will still be repositioned once the buffers are exhausted. This is a case where a slower tape drive is actually a better choice. You match the average data rate of the tape drive with the data rate of your backup stream.
So the bottom line is that you need a very fast link between computers. GigE is a possibility, just computer-to-computer if necessary, or aggregate multiple LAN cards if both ends support it. Otherwise, you may need to look at a local tape drive to keep the expected backup speeds and not destroy your drive in 6 months.
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 07:06 AM
тАО08-06-2004 07:06 AM
Re: Poor performance
mmm, I think we will start working on getting
something running on GigE for the moment. That will be better.
Well, thanks to all who have provided some answers to help me stop mixing Mbps and MBps! ;)
And understanding how the drives works in streaming!
Thanks again!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-06-2004 05:38 PM
тАО08-06-2004 05:38 PM
Re: Poor performance
Hein.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-08-2004 12:08 PM
тАО08-08-2004 12:08 PM
Re: Poor performance
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-09-2004 01:34 AM
тАО08-09-2004 01:34 AM
Re: Poor performance
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-09-2004 01:41 AM
тАО08-09-2004 01:41 AM
Re: Poor performance
Anyway, so far I've been able to reduce the backup time of about 1 hour for my 6 backup groups.
I've attached the backup server in GigE to his switch, and the switch is connected to the main switch via GigE.
All the other servers are connected to their switch in 100MBps to their switch and then the switch to the main one.
(Yeah that's not the optimal setup, but that's what we have now)
At least now the backup server can receive a lot of stuff from other servers on the network.
So for now that's not so bad, but could be wayyyyy better! I'll have to deal with this, and I'll try to push to create a better infrastructure for the backups.
Thanks Everyone!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО08-09-2004 01:44 AM
тАО08-09-2004 01:44 AM
Re: Poor performance
Bill Hassell, sysadmin
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »