[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Ok, I figured it out. Since we use Qlogic branded adapters and QLA driver instead of the QLC driver there was a setting we needed to change in /kernel/drv/qla2300.conf. It is the equipment of the pci-max-read-request variable in qlc.conf. # PCI-X Maximum Memory Read Byte Count. #Range: 0, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes #Default: 0 = system default hba0-pci-x-max-memory-read-byte-count=2048; Anyway, that plus setting maxphys=0x80 in /etc/system seems to have removed all bottlenecks from the T2000 and we are able to get linespeed data transfer speeds through the QLE2462. We are now able to vault jobs at around 160MB/sec from VTL to LTO3. I've only tried two concurrent vaults for x2 performance. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
> I'm watching the duplication job that the vault spawns to > copy the backup from VTL to LTO3. For the bptm process that > is doing the read from VTL: > > <2> io_init: buffer size for read is 64512 > > Obviously, I want to use a high buffer size for reads, but I > already have SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE > set to 262144 so I'm not sure how to modify that particular > buffer setting. What makes you think there is a SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter? There isn't one in the NetBackup Backup Planning and Performance Tuning Guide for 6.0, at least. Normal variable-length tape I/O processing has always been to do a read into a buffer "large enough" and see how much data comes back. So, in NetBackup, AFAIK, the concept of setting a restore buffer size is nonsensical; the buffer size will be whatever the tape was written at. Sounds as if your VTL tape was wrirten in that Solaris-ish 63KB size. You can confirm by, for instance, reading a few blocks with dd. Assuming that pans out, why did the VTL tape get written that way? SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS incorrect, in the wrong place, on the wrong media server, typo, ignored by the VTL driver, ... Do you see the size and number of buffers you specified showing up in the bptm logs when backing up? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Marianu, Jonathan wrote: > My recollection is that during duplication from VTL to tape , it uses the mpx > originally set in the policy unless it is throttled down by the vault policy > but you cant increase it. The MPX is what is so interesting to examine in > truss because I observed that any multiplexing will impact the duplication > speed. > > This is impact more pronounced though when you are mixing slow and fast > clients together because the fragments are not spread out evenly on the > virtual tape and bptm has to rewind the virtual tape and reread, causing a > delay to physical library which is torture on the physical tape drive > > Then I observed that a higher MPX led to a slight improvement in duplication > speed. I would use 24-32 > However there are other tradeoffs. In the end we decided to not use VTL for > network client backups for the new master server environment model. > A problem with VTLis that a slow client backup will hold onto the vritual > media preventing me from using it for duplication. This impacts the RPO of > other clients backups. DSU does not have that issue. > We use 64TB EVA file systems per network media server which give pretty even > performance and we use vxfs. > One outstanding issue with file systems that you dont have with VTL is > fragmentation Another benefit of VTL is that I have a media server dedicated > to writing the backups and another media server dedicated to duplicating > backups. > . > > __ > Jonathan Marianu (mah ree ah' nu) > AT&T Storage Planning and Design Architect > (360) 597-6896 > Work Hours 0800-1800 PST M-F > > Manager: David Anderson > (314) 340-9296 Currently, when client backups are written to the VTL, we are using no multiplexing. Regardless, our vault profile is set to de-multiplex backups when they are duplicated for faster restores from tape. Are you saying to increase MPX to the VTL for client backups will improve vault duplication performance? 24-32MPX ? To avoid the issue with backups tying up virtual tapes for duplication jobs, we reduced the cartridge size in the VTL to 100GB to have more tapes. We rarely see vault waiting for a tape because it is in-use. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Ok, I think I might have discovered something key to my poor performance.. I'm watching the duplication job that the vault spawns to copy the backup from VTL to LTO3. For the bptm process that is doing the read from VTL: <2> io_init: buffer size for read is 64512 Obviously, I want to use a high buffer size for reads, but I already have SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS and SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE set to 262144 so I'm not sure how to modify that particular buffer setting. To somebody else who asked, the connectivity between devices is a Qlogic 9000 series switch and a pair of QLE2462s in the T2000. 4Gb all the way through from host to switch and switch to the VTL front-end port. I think the LTO3 drives are only 2Gb but that should be plenty. Using seperate HBA ports for the VTL luns and LTO3 drive. /etc/system is at default.. no tuning done there since this is a Solaris 10 system with 8GB of memory (so 2GB for shared memory). Using 128 buffers, 262144 size. Goign to increase the # since the system has plenty of memory. Also, in dd tests, I'm able to achieve line speeds on the HBA writing to the VTL so I know its up for the task. I gotta think that the 64k buffer used for reading though is killing the performance. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
For our SAN media servers, we do see restore performance gains with this setting. The difference between the default setting, and 512 has been around 20% for us. We haven't done a whole lot of tuning or analisys on this - I just set it to match NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS. :) For our less high-performance backups (i.e. anything going over the network) I've never looked into it. -devon -Original Message- From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:05 PM To: Peters, Devon C Cc: Mike Andres; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Has anyone here done benchmarks to see what type of potential speed up is gained with the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE directive? On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Peters, Devon C wrote: > I just did a test, and it looks like the duplication process uses > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS for both read and write drives. I'm guessing that > there's just a single set of buffers used by both read and write > processes, rather than a separate set of buffers for each process... > > Config on the test system: > > # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS > 256 > # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE > 128 > > > Here's the bptm io_init info from the duplication - PID 22020 is the > write process, PID 22027 is the read process: > > 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: using 262144 data buffer size > 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: CINDEX 0, sched Kbytes for monitoring > = 2 > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 > (milliseconds) > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115012, buffer address = > 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800 > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: buffer size for read is 262144 > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 > (milliseconds) > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115060, buffer address = > 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800, res_cntl = > 0xf79b9804 > > > Also, there are no lines in the bptm logfile showing > "mpx_setup_restore_shm" for these PIDs... > > -devon > > ____________ > > From: Mike Andres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM > To: Justin Piszcz > Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > Thanks. I guess my question could be more specifically stated as "does > the duplication process utilize NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE or > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS." I don't have a system in front of me to test. > > > > From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 11/21/2007 8:58 AM > To: Mike Andres > Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid > controller has yeah? > > Justin. > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > >> I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication > performance as well. Anybody know this definitively? >> >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, > Devon C >> Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM >> To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu >> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 >> >> >> >> Chris, >> >> To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is > about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any > ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? > Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the > fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? >> >> When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single > drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb > LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is > very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the > limitation of the IBM tape drives. >> >> Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since > we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather > than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a > buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffe
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Has anyone here done benchmarks to see what type of potential speed up is gained with the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE directive? On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Peters, Devon C wrote: > I just did a test, and it looks like the duplication process uses > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS for both read and write drives. I'm guessing that > there's just a single set of buffers used by both read and write > processes, rather than a separate set of buffers for each process... > > Config on the test system: > > # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS > 256 > # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE > 128 > > > Here's the bptm io_init info from the duplication - PID 22020 is the > write process, PID 22027 is the read process: > > 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: using 262144 data buffer size > 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: CINDEX 0, sched Kbytes for monitoring > = 2 > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 > (milliseconds) > 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115012, buffer address = > 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800 > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: buffer size for read is 262144 > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 > (milliseconds) > 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115060, buffer address = > 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800, res_cntl = > 0xf79b9804 > > > Also, there are no lines in the bptm logfile showing > "mpx_setup_restore_shm" for these PIDs... > > -devon > > ________ > > From: Mike Andres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM > To: Justin Piszcz > Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > Thanks. I guess my question could be more specifically stated as "does > the duplication process utilize NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE or > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS." I don't have a system in front of me to test. > > ____ > > From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 11/21/2007 8:58 AM > To: Mike Andres > Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid > controller has yeah? > > Justin. > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > >> I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication > performance as well. Anybody know this definitively? >> >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, > Devon C >> Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM >> To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu >> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 >> >> >> >> Chris, >> >> To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is > about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any > ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? > Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the > fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? >> >> When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single > drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb > LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is > very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the > limitation of the IBM tape drives. >> >> Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since > we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather > than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a > buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are > mostly related to the filesystem performance, since we get better disk > throughput with 1MB I/O's than with smaller ones... >> >> I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter is used when doing duplications? > I would assume it is, but I don't know for sure. If it is, then the > bptm process reading from the VTL would be using the default 16 (?) > buffers, and you might see better performance by using a larger number. >> >> >> -devon >> >> >> - &g
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
My recollection is that during duplication from VTL to tape , it uses the mpx originally set in the policy unless it is throttled down by the vault policy but you can't increase it. The MPX is what is so interesting to examine in truss because I observed that any multiplexing will impact the duplication speed. This is impact more pronounced though when you are mixing slow and fast clients together because the fragments are not spread out evenly on the virtual tape and bptm has to rewind the virtual tape and reread, causing a delay to physical library which is torture on the physical tape drive Then I observed that a higher MPX led to a slight improvement in duplication speed. I would use 24-32 However there are other tradeoffs. In the end we decided to not use VTL for network client backups for the new master server environment model. A problem with VTLis that a slow client backup will hold onto the vritual media preventing me from using it for duplication. This impacts the RPO of other clients backups. DSU does not have that issue. We use 64TB EVA file systems per network media server which give pretty even performance and we use vxfs. One outstanding issue with file systems that you don't have with VTL is fragmentation Another benefit of VTL is that I have a media server dedicated to writing the backups and another media server dedicated to duplicating backups. . __ Jonathan Marianu (mah ree ah' nu) AT&T Storage Planning and Design Architect (360) 597-6896 Work Hours 0800-1800 PST M-F Manager: David Anderson (314) 340-9296 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
I just did a test, and it looks like the duplication process uses NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS for both read and write drives. I'm guessing that there's just a single set of buffers used by both read and write processes, rather than a separate set of buffers for each process... Config on the test system: # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS 256 # cat /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE 128 Here's the bptm io_init info from the duplication - PID 22020 is the write process, PID 22027 is the read process: 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: using 262144 data buffer size 10:43:20.523 [22020] <2> io_init: CINDEX 0, sched Kbytes for monitoring = 2 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 (milliseconds) 10:43:20.524 [22020] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115012, buffer address = 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: using 256 data buffers 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: buffer size for read is 262144 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: child delay = 20, parent delay = 30 (milliseconds) 10:43:21.188 [22027] <2> io_init: shm_size = 67115060, buffer address = 0xf39b8000, buf control = 0xf79b8000, ready ptr = 0xf79b9800, res_cntl = 0xf79b9804 Also, there are no lines in the bptm logfile showing "mpx_setup_restore_shm" for these PIDs... -devon From: Mike Andres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:49 AM To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Thanks. I guess my question could be more specifically stated as "does the duplication process utilize NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE or NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS." I don't have a system in front of me to test. From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 11/21/2007 8:58 AM To: Mike Andres Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid controller has yeah? Justin. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication performance as well. Anybody know this definitively? > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, Devon C > Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Chris, > > To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? > > When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the IBM tape drives. > > Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's than with smaller ones... > > I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by using a larger number. > > > -devon > > > - > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 > From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Something you wrote didn't sound quite right. Bpbkar writes to the child bptm using TCP sockets which is a bottleneck. The child bptm process or processes, depending on MPX, write to shared memory, The parent bptm reads from shared memory and writes it to the tape. I still use 5.1 so this may be different in 6.0 __ Jonathan Marianu (mah ree ah' nu) AT&T Storage Planning and Design Architect (360) 597-6896 Work Hours 0800-1800 PST M-F Manager: David Anderson (314) 340-9296 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Not sure if this question was directed at Mike or myself, but if it was directed to me... In our case, the memory buffers for the disk are the shared memory buffers on the media server (T2000). When a media server is backing up itself, the bpbkar process reads from disk directly into the shared-memory buffers - the same buffers that the bptm process is writing to tape from. So, for our filesystem backups, we see disk I/O's of the same size as our tape buffers... We're currently bottlenecked at the front-end processors of our storage array, and doing fewer larger I/O's provides a little more throughput from the array. The cache on the storage array is something I don't have a whole lot of understanding about. I assume that for reads, it is mostly a buffer space for readahead... -devon -Original Message- From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:59 AM To: Mike Andres Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid controller has yeah? Justin. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication performance as well. Anybody know this definitively? > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, Devon C > Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Chris, > > To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? > > When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the IBM tape drives. > > Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's than with smaller ones... > > I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by using a larger number. > > > -devon > > > ------------- > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 > From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Thanks. I guess my question could be more specifically stated as "does the duplication process utilize NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE or NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS." I don't have a system in front of me to test. From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 11/21/2007 8:58 AM To: Mike Andres Cc: Peters, Devon C; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid controller has yeah? Justin. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication performance as > well. Anybody know this definitively? > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, Devon C > Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Chris, > > To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all > we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between > your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified > that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? > > When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive > toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, > throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very > compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the > IBM tape drives. > > Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're > doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to > tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of > 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the > filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's > than with smaller ones... > > I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE > parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't > know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be > using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by > using a larger number. > > > -devon > > > - > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 > From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The > backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 > PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 > switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP > LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from > switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape > drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two > jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a > 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN > exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL > zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Buffers in memory to disk would be dependent on how much cache the raid controller has yeah? Justin. On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Mike Andres wrote: > I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication performance as > well. Anybody know this definitively? > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, Devon C > Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > Chris, > > To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all > we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between > your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified > that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? > > When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive > toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, > throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very > compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the > IBM tape drives. > > Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're > doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to > tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of > 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the > filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's > than with smaller ones... > > I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE > parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't > know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be > using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by > using a larger number. > > > -devon > > > --------- > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 > From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The > backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 > PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 > switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP > LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from > switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape > drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two > jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a > 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN > exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL > zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
I'm curious about NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE and duplication performance as well. Anybody know this definitively? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peters, Devon C Sent: Tue 11/20/2007 1:32 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Chris, To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the IBM tape drives. Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's than with smaller ones... I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by using a larger number. -devon - Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN exceeds the vault performance. My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL zoned on the other port. I'm using: SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 Any other suggestions? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Chris, To me it looks like there's a 1Gb bottleneck somewhere (90MB/s is about all we ever got out of 1Gb fibre back in the day). Are there any ISL's between your tape drive, your switch, and your server's HBA? Also, have you verified that your tape drives have negotiated onto the fabric as 2Gb and not 1Gb? When we had 2Gb LTO-3 drives on our T2000's, throughput to a single drive toped out around 160MB/s. When we upgraded the drives to 4Gb LTO-3, throughput to a single drive went up to 260MB/s. Our data is very compressible, and these numbers are what I assume to be the limitation of the IBM tape drives. Regarding buffer settings, my experience may not apply directly since we're doing disk (filesystems on fast storge) to tape backups, rather than VTL to tape. With our setup we see the best performance with a buffer size of 1048576 and 512 buffers. For us these buffer sizes are mostly related to the filesystem performance, since we get better disk throughput with 1MB I/O's than with smaller ones... I'm also curious if anyone knows whether the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE parameter is used when doing duplications? I would assume it is, but I don't know for sure. If it is, then the bptm process reading from the VTL would be using the default 16 (?) buffers, and you might see better performance by using a larger number. -devon - Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:18 -0800 From: Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN exceeds the vault performance. My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL zoned on the other port. I'm using: SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 Any other suggestions? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
The MPX setting of the original backup can greatly influence the speed of your duplications. I'm not *telling* you to use a high mpx but it is something to consider testing. It is very interesting to open up two ssh sessions, put them side by side and run a truss on both the reading and writing bptm processes of the media server while a duplication is running and then rotate your screen 90 degrees to the right. That illustrates the effect MPX has much better than I could describe in words. __ Jonathan Marianu (mah ree ah' nu) AT&T Storage Planning and Design Architect (360) 597-6896 Work Hours 0800-1800 PST M-F Manager: David Anderson (314) 340-9296 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
If it's a T2000 it's Sol 10 and the default for shared memory is 1/4 of physical memory which I can almost guarantee no one set their's that big back in Sol 9. I would not put any of these entries in /etc/system on Sol 10, my V890 with Sol 10 runs very well without any. Dom -Original Message- From: Andre Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 17 November 2007 8:58 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Depending on how many streams and write drives are running concurrently, check your shared memory settings in /etc/system. On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. > The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic > QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a > Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 > (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from > host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a > real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. > If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/ > sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have > v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the > WAN exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and > the VTL zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > +-- > > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Chris, Which version of Solaris are you using. You might have a look on the following URL. There are some parameters to tune for the T2000. http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/tnb/parameters.jsp#2 Besides, what does the bptm logs say about the buffers? According to you settings, you have only buffer 50 ms. I would increase the number of buffers to a higher number and see how it goes... Greg On Nov 16, 2007 7:00 PM, Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The > backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 > PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 > switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP > LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from > switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real > tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up > two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've > hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN > exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the > VTL zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > +-- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > -- Gregory DEMILDE Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Same here. But I'm looking into replacing an UE450 with a T2 box. (T5120 or T5220) Conner, Neil wrote: Let us know how it goes - I'm looking at doing the same thing with a T2000. -Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris_Millet Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:57 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Seems like that shouldn't be the case, but OK i'll try it. Our Qlogic rep states this adapter should be fully capable of 380MB/sec, full duplex, on both ports, simultaneously. "best in industry" And the T2000 is no slouch in the PCI-E department. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu begin:vcard fn:Matthew Stier n:Stier;Matthew org:Fujitsu Network Communications;CAE adr:Sixth Floor;;Two Blue Hill Plaza;Pearl River;NY;10965;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Principal Engineer tel;work:845-731-2097 tel;fax:845-731-2011 tel;cell:845-893-0575 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
No other activity on the server except for the read stream from VTL and the write stream to LTO3. There are a couple GB allocated for shmmem. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Depending on how many streams and write drives are running concurrently, check your shared memory settings in /etc/system. On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Chris_Millet <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. > The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic > QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a > Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 > (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from > host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a > real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. > If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/ > sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have > v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the > WAN exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and > the VTL zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > +-- > > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Let us know how it goes - I'm looking at doing the same thing with a T2000. -Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris_Millet Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:57 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 Seems like that shouldn't be the case, but OK i'll try it. Our Qlogic rep states this adapter should be fully capable of 380MB/sec, full duplex, on both ports, simultaneously. "best in industry" And the T2000 is no slouch in the PCI-E department. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
Seems like that shouldn't be the case, but OK i'll try it. Our Qlogic rep states this adapter should be fully capable of 380MB/sec, full duplex, on both ports, simultaneously. "best in industry" And the T2000 is no slouch in the PCI-E department. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
You may see better performance by connecting the tapes and CDL to different HBAs in different slots on separate busses. Yes, there's more than enough "bandwidth", but the bus has to reverse direction to send/receive, so if you have your cards laid out so one bus is "sending" and the other "receiving" you will see better total throughput. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Chris_Millet > Sent: November 16, 2007 1:00 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3 > > > > I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media > servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. > There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the > system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one > port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape > drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and > from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. > > So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the > VTL to a real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at > about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, > they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec > bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! > > Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups > over the WAN exceeds the vault performance. > > My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA > ports, and the VTL zoned on the other port. > > I'm using: > SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 > NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 > > Any other suggestions? > > +- > - > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +- > - > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] T2000 vaulting performance with VTL/LTO3
I'm starting to experiment with the use of T2000 for media servers. The backup server is a T2000 8 core, 18GB system. There is a Qlogic QLE2462 PCI-E dual port 4Gb adapter in the system that plugs into a Qlogic 5602 switch. From there, one port is zoned to a EMC CDL 4400 (VTL) and a few HP LTO3 tape drives. The connectivity is 4Gb from host to switch, and from switch to the VTL. The tape drive is 2Gb. So when using Netbackup Vault to copy a backup done to the VTL to a real tape drive, the backup performance tops out at about 90MB/sec. If I spin up two jobs to two tape drives, they both go about 45MB/sec. It seems I've hit a 90MB/sec bottleneck somehow. I have v240s performing better! Write performance to the VTL from incoming client backups over the WAN exceeds the vault performance. My next step is to zone the tape drives on one of the HBA ports, and the VTL zoned on the other port. I'm using: SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 262144 NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 64 Any other suggestions? +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
