Backup Exec Transferrate "nur" auf 117-119MB/Min

[doITagain]

Hallo an alle,

hab ein grössers Problem wie folgt:

Habe vor bei einem Kunden Backup Exec 2010 in Betrieb zu nehmen.

Hab daher einen Windows 2008 R2 Standard Server hergenommen und die Software Installiert (60 Tage Trial) dazu einen SCSI HP 1/8 G2 Tape Autoloader.

Der Server ist direkt mit der Storage verbunden mit 1000MB. Netzwerkkarte ist eingestellt das sie 1000 MB gehen soll, was heisst, das die Einstellung der Netzwerkkarte von Ternsferspeed auf 1000 MB eingestellt worden ist.

soweit so gut, nun erstelle ich einen Backup Job, der mit Daten von der Storage direkt auf ein Tape sichern soll. Dies ist auch kein Problem, jedoch hab ich ca 1TB daten zu sichern.

Da der Kunde auf jedem Tape eine komplett Sicherung will komm ich vorne und hinten nicht weiter, da ich eine Max. Transferrate von 117-119 MB/min habe. Derzeit läuft nachwievor das Backup das ich letzten Donnerstag gestartet habe. Da ist für mich das Backup sinnlos, da in der zwischenzeit Daten bearbeitet worden und neue dazugekommen.

Ich habe auch davor schon backups getestet mit dem Originalen Treiber von HP sowie auch die Treiber von Symantec, ohne jedlichen erfolg, das ich sich die Transferrate erhöht.

Daher meine frage, hab ich da irgendwie was übersehen ? bzw. eine einstellung falsch gemacht ? bzw. hat jemand solche erfahrungen und noch besser eine Lösung ?

falls noch fragen offen sein sollten, beantworte ich sie natürlich gerne !

ich bedank mich jetzt schon im voraus bei all möglichen ideen und vorschläge.

Manfred

[CraigV]

Hi,

What tape drive is it? LTO2/LTO3/LTO4 etc. This is going to also dictate how fast you can back up.

I am glad to see you hard-coded your NIC. I'd suggest hard-coding your switch port too.

Is the data you're backing up on the local server, or is it backing up network servers? If network servers, you should also look at hard-coding their NIC speeds.

1TB of data can also mean millions of small files...these would never allow the tape drive to spool up to its most optimal speed either...

[doITagain]

Hi,

It´s an HP Autoloader Ultrium 1760 LTO 4.

I connect to the Storage direct with ah cross over cable ... so i didn´t have an switch between the Starge and the Server.

For this we have an own Network IP .. on the Storage we have 4 NICs.

One For the Local network and the Severs. One for Hyper-V files and one is not in use. the 4th NIC is for the backup and so i can map the Shares from the Storage direct to the Server.

so i can backup from a local server.

Yes, your right .. ther are many small files .. but .. if i start a backup to disk i have a speed from 480 to 900 MB/min !

but .. if i backup from local disk "C:" to the Tapeloader i get again the speed between 117-119MB/min :(

So .. :

backup from storage over the network (with switch) to tabeloader -> 117-119 MB/Min

backup from storage ober cross over cabel to tabeloader -> 117-119 MB/Min

backup from storage to local hard drive (C:) -> 480-900 MB/Min

backp from local hard drive (C:) to tabeloader -> 117-119 MB/Min

its crazy i know :)

[CraigV]

OK...a couple of things to look at then:

1. Disable any antivirus running and try the backup again. I have seen McAfee cause issues with backups on my sites. If this improves the speeds, you can consider putting in exclusions for the BE services that run.

2. Make sure that the Symantec drivers have been installed. You can download the latest drivers from the Symantec site. Run the Device Configuration Wizard to install them...

[doITagain]

well ..

1.) The Server is a stand-alon sever without any antivirus software ...

This is the reason why we use an own network and direct attacht to the storage.

2.) Currently i use the Symantec drivers ... at first time i have used the HP drivers with the same speed ..

At the first time, i used an older server (2years old) .. a old DC bevor we upgrad to a W2k8 domain .. if i seen i have the transfere speed problem i installt the server clean and so i have currently the symantec drivers !

and no .. the backup server isn´t in any domain, because .. i have only one nic there. but this is not realy a problem, because i have attacht to the storage over iSCSI. The only problem is, i can manage the server only direct over the console. but this is at the moment not the bigest problem ;)

[CraigV]

OK...is the storage attached to a dedicated SCSI card, or is it connected to the same card that your hard drives are connected too?

[doITagain]

well .. the storage have 4 Interfaces .. 2 interfaces are in use for the network to work (files and VMs) .. 1 is emty and 1 is connect to the server. The Storage didn´t have andy SCSI interface ! .. I connect from the storage to the server with an ethernet cable (iSCSI) .. and than i use a SCSI card to connect to the tapeloader !

i think, my problem is between the Server and the Tapeloader, because ... if i make a backup from the local hard drive .. i have the same transfer speed. maybe .. can i solve the problem, when i change the Puffer size ? because i have many short files ! .. but .. if i backup large files the speed is the same :(

so .. ... i think its better to make backup-to-disk-to-tabe! .. i have for the backup 20 to 22 hours time (to backup fromt the stoarge to the tabeloader) .. currently .. i have backup 850GB in 112.5 Hours, and the job isn´t finish !.. and that is not really happy for me :(

i know .. it´s hard .. very hard .. and i say "many thanks for your time"

[CraigV]

Mmm...Well, Symantec (and other vendors) are always going to tell you to follow a disk-to-disk-to-tape policy. Disk is cheaper than tape to implement, and always faster to restore from.

Go for that...another thing to consider is using a Differential/Incremental policy where your Differential/Incremental can run during the week, leaving the Full backup for the weekend. This will cut down backup times further!

[doITagain]

well .. and now .. i have the problem that the people here work 7 days .. and so i have the problem with the full backup :( ..

i was at the backup server for few mins .. and .. 890GB in 117 hours ! .. 4 days and more :( ..

the problem is .. the tapeloader have 8 slots ! 1-5 from Monday to Friday ... tape 6 for every secound friday, tape 7 for the last day in month and tape 8 is a backup tape.

that´s that, was the customer want !

so .. if i start a full backup at friday ... and i say 120 hours later the backup is finish ? ... what now ? use the tape 1-5 for differntial/incremental backups ? i don´t work! i start last thursday a full backup and i runs at the momant! so .. i have no backup from monday ! ...

or have you any idea ?

I am open to all suggestions

[CraigV]

If that is what the client wants (how you described it), then your best bet is to use D2D2T as a backup strategy...

You can schedule a duplicate job to run immediately after your backup to disk runs.

[Simon_B_]

From what you describe it seems as if the connection to the tapedrive would be the bottleneck. But even 480-900MB/s are not really fast when talking about backups direct to disk.

To verify if the problem is really related to the file size I'd suggest to do a test backup of a folder with few big files (e.g. ISO Installation Images). Try to backup this data first to disk and then duplicate this backup to tape and compare the transfer speeds.

This will give you an idea whether your problems are indeed the small files or maybe something between the BE server and the library.

Regards

[CraigV]

...any news here?

Thanks!