Poor NetApp NAS backup performance /w small files.

[597613730]

I'm testing out a Network Appliance FAS250 NAS server for possible purchase and use in our organization. The one problem I've hit is that backups from our Win2K/BackupExec10 server are EXTREMELY slow. Of course since this is a psudo-unix box that emulates Windows I can't install an agent, so I've set BE10 to allow me to flag normal CIFS shares to back up.

One test backup with 50 thousand files making up 1.35GB of data ran at just 50MB/minute, verified at a screaming 400MB/m, and then restored at just 30MB/minute. CPU use was also very high, over %50.

A second test backup with just two zip files making 1.6GB, performance was perfect at 260MB/m for backup, verify, and restore (260 is about what my older DLT7000 drive can do on uncompressible data). CPU use was barely %5-10.

So what is the problem here, and any possible solutions? I've tried all the things in the 'making BE10 and NetApp like each other' white paper without success. It smells like small file access through CIFS is simply extremely CPU intensive, but I don't want to jump to conclusions just yet. Thanks.

-Carl Merritt
Luminous Networks

[559902441]

We've had similar issues with backing up large amounts of small files... (mind you not on a NetApp.. just a regular server) and after looking at possible solutions there are 2 that stand out..

1. Do disk-to-disk-to-tape and then you don't need to worry about a backup window...

2. Do block level backups. I don't think BackupExec can do that... Netbackup might be able to and a few competing products can as well..

Hope this helps.

> I'm testing out a Network Appliance FAS250 NAS server
> for possible purchase and use in our organization.
> The one problem I've hit is that backups from our
> r Win2K/BackupExec10 server are EXTREMELY slow. Of
> course since this is a psudo-unix box that emulates
> Windows I can't install an agent, so I've set BE10 to
> allow me to flag normal CIFS shares to back up.
>
> One test backup with 50 thousand files making up
> 1.35GB of data ran at just 50MB/minute, verified at a
> screaming 400MB/m, and then restored at just
> 30MB/minute. CPU use was also very high, over %50.
>
> A second test backup with just two zip files making
> 1.6GB, performance was perfect at 260MB/m for backup,
> verify, and restore (260 is about what my older
> DLT7000 drive can do on uncompressible data). CPU
> use was barely %5-10.
>
> So what is the problem here, and any possible
> solutions? I've tried all the things in the 'making
> BE10 and NetApp like each other' white paper without
> success. It smells like small file access through
> CIFS is simply extremely CPU intensive, but I don't
> want to jump to conclusions just yet. Thanks.
>
> -Carl Merritt
> Luminous Networks

[Kerm]

Backing up many small files always has a higher overhead than large files. The cataloging, file marks, etc. are the same for a 1 KB file as a 10 GB file. Having said that, your performance is an order of magnitude worse than what I see on remote server backups (not NAS). If you are using OFO, test with it turned off. Can you determine where the system resources are going? With BEX at lowest priority I'm seeing all BEX services totaling 15% of a 2*2.8 GHz BEX server.

[Amruta_Purandar]

Hello,

Please let us know if the above mentioned solutions helped you. If not, please revert.

NOTE : If we do not receive your reply within two business days, this post would be marked
assumed answered and would be moved to answered questions pool.