02-05-2009 10:40 AM
I can't get more than 30 MB/s when duplicating from disk to tape. I've tried duplicating from different DSU's on SAN, NAS, and local storage. None will yield greater than 30 MB/s.
However, I can back up data on the same SAN, NAS, and local storage through the same media server to the same tape drive at 70 - 80 MB/s. That tells me that the source disk and the tape drive aren't my bottleneck.
I don't understand why a backup can be fast but a duplication with the same source and target can be so slow.
I've had a case open with support for months and they haven't been much help. I'm hoping someone here can help me.
Thanks for your time.
02-05-2009 11:06 AM
Methinks "NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS".
Search this forum.
Spend a good hour or two reading.
Don't play.
Plan your change.
Plan your test.
Be sure of your expectations.
Plan your roll-back.
De-activate ALL policies before you make your change.
Make one change (at a time) when your system is quiet.
Does your change require an application restart?
Do NOT peform any dups or backups yet!
Perform a medium sized restore (several gig).
Does it still work? No? Roll-back and plan again.
Run one duplication.
Make the new duped image the primary.
Run a restore from the duped image.
Does it still work? No? Roll-back and plan again.
Activate your test policy.
Perform a backup with your test policy.
Does it still work? No? Roll-back and plan again.
Perform a restore from that backup.
Does it still work? No? Roll-back and plan again.
Any improvements?
Willing to take a risk/chance with your next backup session? No? Roll-back and re-read all your gathered notes/docs again, and plan again.
HTH.
02-05-2009 11:21 AM
Thanks for the reply sdw303. Are you saying that an incorrect setting in "NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS" could cause fast backups but slow duplications? I'm not sure I understand - both operations read from disk and write to tape.
Ryan
02-05-2009 11:34 AM
Ooops - I hate being caught out. ;)
So, are you saying that the backup data comes from the same NAS head, same SAN ports, through the same switches, off the same logical volumes, off the same LUNs, off the same parity groups, off the same spindles - as the duplication data? i.e. Does the data that is backed up reside on the same logical disk (set) as the image to be duplicated?
How is your disk storage unit configured?
02-05-2009 11:59 AM
DSUs and DSSUs is an area that I'm weak on.
I'll try to describe my simple take on the differences (could someone else please correct me - or provide a better explanation..thanks) between the processes that are actually taking place...
Your backup:
disk --> bpbkar --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> tape
Your duplication:
disk --> bpdm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> tape
Though simple, is this correct? Can anyone else comment?
So, I can't help but think that the interaction between bpdm and bptm for the duplication job is not optimally tuned, i.e. for the inter-memory transfer of (probably) large blocks/fragments (SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK) from a disk based image to the (likely) breakup into smaller (SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS) blocks for writing to tape - but it's not just a size thing - the number of buffers for disk and tape will have an effect too.
02-05-2009 12:08 PM
@sdw303 wrote:Ooops - I hate being caught out. ;)
So, are you saying that the backup data comes from the same NAS head, same SAN ports, through the same switches, off the same logical volumes, off the same LUNs, off the same parity groups, off the same spindles - as the duplication data? i.e. Does the data that is backed up reside on the same logical disk (set) as the image to be duplicated?
How is your disk storage unit configured?
Thanks for the reply. The answer to all of your questions is Yes. I stood up a dedicated server to test this issue and ran a backup to a DSU on the D: drive. I then backed up the folder containing the backup image to tape and got 75 MB/s. Next I duplicated the backup image to tape and only got 25 MB/s.
02-05-2009 12:09 PM
@sdw303 wrote:
Your backup:
disk --> bpbkar --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> tape
Your duplication:
disk --> bpdm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> tape
This is an interesting point - I'll do some tweaking of SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and see if it makes any difference.
Ryan
02-05-2009 12:33 PM
Ryan, before you start tuning - can I suggest that you do some research - like I said, I'm weak on DSU/DSSU and I can be sure that I've understood the concepts correctly. I'm hoping that I'm close, but I don't know for sure.
Please post back with whatever you think might of interest. I know that I, for one, am keen to understand the differences in more detail between a disk based backup and a disk based duplication.
02-05-2009 10:28 PM
Duplication buffer size is
---read side: same size as used for the backup,
---write side: SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS (default : 64K (tape), 256K(disk) ) <-- another Media server
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
local backup:
[disk] --> bpbkar --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
**bpbkar read size = SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
**bptm write size = SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
remote backup and local encryption backup:
[disk] --> bpbkar --(socket)--> bptm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
**bpbkar read size = 512k Byte
**bptm write size = SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
duplication:
[disk] --> bpdm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
**bptm read size = same size as used for the backup
**bptm write size = same size as used for the backup (Except remote media server)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duplicate isn't bpbkar, and isn't two data buffers.
Perhaps, maybe correct.
02-06-2009 01:35 AM
I suppose a traditional client backup might be better put as:
remote backup and local encryption backup:
[disk] --> bpbkar --> BUFFER_SIZE --> (socket) --> NET_BUFFER_SZ --> bptm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
**bpbkar read size = 512k Byte
**bptm write size = SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
And your "duplication" might be better entitled "local DSU to tape duplication":
local DSU to tape duplication:
[disk] --> bpdm --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
You don't seem to think NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK has anything to do with bpdm reading the disk image. Does anyone else know specifically what these parameters are used for?
02-06-2009 02:23 AM
Hi sdw303,
Buffer size and numbers are decided by type of STU.
Ryan's case,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) local backup to Disk STU:
[disk] --> bpbkar --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK --> bpdm --> [disk]
2) local DSU to tape duplication:
[disk] --> bpdm --> [same buffer size as used for the backup / NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS ] --> bptm --> [tape]
And,
x)
1) local backup to Tape STU:
[disk] --> bpbkar --> SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS --> bptm --> [tape]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-06-2009 01:43 PM
I'm getting a very similar, but worse problem using NBU 6.5.3. All backups are directed to basic disk storage units on the Windows 2003 master/media server. Backups to the SAS-attached disk run ~45-60MB/sec. No backups go initially to tape, period. We did run preliminary tests backups to tape to verify the h/w config and got speeds around 30-35MB/sec on LTO4 drives. Not great, but ok. I expired all test backup images prior to running Vault. Vault is configured to run duplication from the direct-attached disk stu's to SAN-attached LTO-4 drives and runs at a time when no other jobs can start.
Duplication speed is between 5.6MB/sec and 9.3MB/sec. I've changed the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS to 262144 (256K) and NUM_DATA_BUFFERS to 16, 32, and 64, stopping/starting all services before each test, but have only seen minor improvement with each change. Backups to either disk or tape are much faster than dupes run on the same local server, which is very puzzling.
Anyone else duping from disk to tape with 6.5.x and getting good performance?
02-18-2009 08:53 AM
We've been troubleshooting this for 2 weeks and still have gotten no improvement in duplication performance. Did any of you resolve the issues you were having with Vault duplication performance?
thanks,
james
02-27-2009 06:51 AM
Hi Road_Warrior,
No, I haven't resolved my issue yet. I'm still working with Support but they're not doing much besides asking for the same logfiles over and over again.
I hope to have more time to devote to this issue next week.
06-04-2009 12:17 PM
06-09-2009 02:24 PM
06-10-2009 07:36 AM
06-30-2009 07:41 AM
01-05-2010 05:52 AM
01-05-2010 07:48 AM