Processor Utilization Netbackup 6.5.1 Windows 2003

[Fischer]

Hi All,

I have recently converted from a linux 6.5.1 server to windows and am noticing that my backups are taking a little bit longer than they use to.  I am using the tape device drivers from the 6.5 cd and have set all my settings on the windows box to be the same as the linux box. 

I am noticing that when i have two backup jobs running that my dual core box isbetween %35 and %79 utilization.  Could this be enough load that my hardware can't quite keep up and is thus slowing my backups?

I'm going to look at some optimization documentation to see if it's something else, but I just thought I woudl check. 

Thanks

I also just checked my network utilization and it is hitting 95%.  Can I add a second nic and will the backup jobs load balance between the two?

Message Edited by Fischer on 01-14-2009 03:20 PM

Message Edited by Fischer on 01-14-2009 03:53 PM

[subhojit_pal]

Hi Fischer,

I have the same problem with my HP-UX master server which is also 6.5.1. We found out that the NB_dbsrv process eats up a lot of CPU when many backup jobs get submitted and did not relase the resources easily. I had to scatter the backups through out the day to complete all the backups but obviously backing up some of them during working hours is causing performance issues.

Symantec folks told me it is a problem with 6.5.1 and should be resolved in 6.5.2 or higher but I did not have guts so far to implement it so far.

Thanks,

Subhojit.

[marekkedzierski]

if nbdbsrv is using a lot of cpu resources all the time it's probably a bug, try tu upgrade to 6.5.3 - I think it's safe now- and if your problem still be present you should to search in NB logs, a the beginning nbemm (111)..

go to <install dir>\netbackup\logs and find a log which generates a lot of data.. -xxx- in log name is a NB component ID ..

Netbackup database doesn't use a lot of cpu itself. Some processes are probalby generating huge ammount of queries/updates (loop)..

regards

marekk

[Fischer]

Thank you for the replies.  It's nice to know there is a bug in the 6.5.1 version.