skipunk wrote:
Your right, your setting is close to mine. I would run 1 backup at a time if
I could pull the speeds that I get from a local backup, so currently I'll be
pushing more backup's at once until I can find the issues causing this.
Using concurrent backups and spooling is a _big_
On 26.05.2010 01:55, skipunk wrote:
The nic's in the server are Broadcom's netextreme II's. I would
assume that they would support checksum offload and large tcp packet
offload, but I really I'm not sure.
They do support all offload options.
But those options don't boost you from 40MByte/s
skipunk schrieb:
I am aware that more nic's do not increase throughput. Basically a
backup server has to be in place tonight and I really don't want to
start from scratch and now reaching for anything that will resolve
the issue within the next few hours.
1. test the lto drive with tar/dd.
Morty Abzug wrote:
This sort of problem is typical of a speed/duplex mismatch. That is,
either your switch or your server is hardcoding the speed of your
network port, and the other end is using different settings.
A lot of network admins still believe the best way to run a network is
with
Morty Abzug wrote:
This sort of problem is typical of a speed/duplex mismatch. That
is,
either your switch or your server is hardcoding the speed of your
network port, and the other end is using different settings.
A lot of network admins still believe the best way to run a network
I ended up working myself into the ground getting the backup system going and
missed part of the day today. Tonight everythign is going to run as is limping
along until I can find the issue.
Morty:
My core switch is HP Procurve 5412 which is managed. The ports are set to auto
and the two
After returning to my office this morning, I had found the server was connected
to a 10/100 switch. I had moved it to the rack and connected it to the switch
10/100/1000 and nic 1 pulls 1000 on ethtools
nic 2 pulls 100 on ethtools.
After futher investigation, it looks like nic 2 is capped at
skipunk wrote:
After returning to my office this morning, I had found the server was
connected to a 10/100 switch. I had moved it to the rack and connected it to
the switch 10/100/1000 and nic 1 pulls 1000 on ethtools
nic 2 pulls 100 on ethtools.
After futher investigation, it looks like
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Richard Scobie rich...@sauce.co.nz wrote:
skipunk wrote:
After returning to my office this morning, I had found the server was
connected to a 10/100 switch. I had moved it to the rack and connected it
to the switch 10/100/1000 and nic 1 pulls 1000 on
I can run multiple concurrent backups to the 1 drive. I was doing that with our
AIT setup. right now the new server is set to do 3 backups, but I think I could
kick it up to 5. I added a 2nd nic in so I'm now running two 1 gig nics to the
core switch (which is where all the servers that are
What would it take to clear up the network bottleneck. I was looking at
another server that came with our gaming system. Same server (memory, hd, etc)
and tape library, running on win2k3 and netbackup with no issues. The only
difference is, it's running 4 nic's. So it's leaving me a bit
skipunk wrote:
What would it take to clear up the network bottleneck. I was looking at
another server that came with our gaming system. Same server (memory, hd,
etc) and tape library, running on win2k3 and netbackup with no issues. The
only difference is, it's running 4 nic's. So it's
What would it take to clear up the network bottleneck.
Upgrade to gigabit networking. A 24 port gigabit switch can be had for
under $200 US. However that assumes your desktops can support gigabit.
Most motherboards come with gigabit for the last 3 years however dell,
hp ... have been selling
We are running a Gigabit network. All servers have gigabit connection.
I looked more in detail on the other server identical to ours and the other
difference I found is that TL2000 is connected via scsi instead of SAS.
Right now I pulled the drives and put some spares in to install win2k3
On 24.05.2010 22:31, skipunk wrote:
What would it take to clear up the network bottleneck. I was looking
at another server that came with our gaming system. Same server
(memory, hd, etc) and tape library, running on win2k3 and netbackup
with no issues. The only difference is, it's running 4
I am aware that more nic's do not increase throughput. Basically a backup
server has to be in place tonight and I really don't want to start from scratch
and now reaching for anything that will resolve the issue within the next few
hours.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:26 PM, skipunk bacula-fo...@backupcentral.com wrote:
I am aware that more nic's do not increase throughput. Basically a backup
server has to be in place tonight and I really don't want to start from
scratch and now reaching for anything that will resolve the issue
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 02:04:15PM -0400, skipunk wrote:
Even running on 1 nic, my speeds have jumped up to a max of 8 Mb/s with an
avg of 3 - 4 Mb/s when doing backups over the net.
A little better but not where it should be.
I'm at a loss for the moment.
Test your network connection
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 05:22:52PM -0400, skipunk wrote:
We are running a Gigabit network. All servers have gigabit connection.
Are you using managed switches, such as Cisco Catalyst switches?
Those can be configured per port to use lower speeds. If one end is
hardcoded to 100/full and the
After returning to my office this morning, I had found the server was
connected to a 10/100 switch. I had moved it to the rack and
connected it to
the switch 10/100/1000 and nic 1 pulls 1000 on ethtools
nic 2 pulls 100 on ethtools.
After futher investigation, it looks like nic 2 is
What is your blocking factor on the drive? Assuming hardware is OK it
sounds like you do not have your drive configured properly for variable
block sizes.
issue:
mt-st -f /dev/st0 setblk 0
mt-st -f /dev/st0 defblksize 0
mt-st -f /dev/st0 defcompression 0
mt-st -f /dev/st0 compression 0
Status update. I just finished the first backup job which was 3.6 Gb. It
took 2.5 hours to run. avg speeds finished around 500k/s.
I've gone as far again to reboot the library and the server and still no
changes. I'm not sure what i'm over looking. I have 1T of data to backup
on one of
Janusz
Both nics reported back at 100 Mb/s
I'm beginning to think the network is the bottleneck.
I ran a backup on my server with bacula. backing up the file I have been using.
A 3.4Gb in 2 min and the only reason for it taking so long was because of a
tape change in the library. So locally
Both nics reported back at 100 Mb/s
I'm beginning to think the network is the bottleneck.
That is not going to work well for a tape drive that needs 100MB/s+
even with spooling you will always be waiting on the slow network.
John
That's what I was figuring.
I'm assuming Gigabit is what is required and was under the assumption that
these nics were gigabit. If someone could confirm 2 gigabit nics will suffice?
If they are I'm betting the server and plugged into our test switch (10/100)
instead of the home where it
Hi all,
Hoping someone could help me out. My department recently purchased a Dell
PowerVault TL2000 autochanger connected via SAS5.
We are upgrading from a spectralogic AIT4 system.
The sad part is the LTO-4 drive is running much slower than the AIT system.
I'm avg around 714k/s. I have
Status update. I just finished the first backup job which was 3.6 Gb. It took
2.5 hours to run. avg speeds finished around 500k/s.
I've gone as far again to reboot the library and the server and still no
changes. I'm not sure what i'm over looking. I have 1T of data to backup on
one of the
Hi all,
Hoping someone could help me out. My department recently purchased a
Dell
PowerVault TL2000 autochanger connected via SAS5.
We are upgrading from a spectralogic AIT4 system.
The sad part is the LTO-4 drive is running much slower than the AIT
system.
I'm avg around 714k/s. I
skipunk schrieb:
Hoping someone could help me out. My department recently purchased
a Dell PowerVault TL2000 autochanger connected via SAS5.
We are upgrading from a spectralogic AIT4 system.
The sad part is the LTO-4 drive is running much slower than the AIT
system. I'm avg around
skipunk wrote:
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
The other suggestions have suggested running the standard tests,
You didn't say anything about hardware and I found that to be very
important when I changed from DAT to DLT tapes, which initially ran just
as glacial as the DAT.
The first
skipunk wrote:
Status update. I just finished the first backup job which was 3.6 Gb. It
took 2.5 hours to run. avg speeds finished around 500k/s.
I've gone as far again to reboot the library and the server and still no
changes. I'm not sure what i'm over looking. I have 1T of data to
I had ran the btape tests on Thursday when everything was setup and pushed 845G
in a little over 2 hours avg speed of 102.7Mb/s
I haven't tried doing the dd or tar test. I never tried that before, so I'm
looking into what needs to be done to complete this task.
The server is a Dell R200, I
I was not able to copy/backup files using tar. I may have been doing something
wrong.
I had a job in progress using dd. a 3.3Gb file which i started 40 min ago and
it's still running.
+--
|This was sent by skip...@gmail.com
the backup finished with a speed of 1.3MB/s at little under an hour.
+--
|This was sent by skip...@gmail.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
I was not able to copy/backup files using tar. I may have been doing
something wrong.
I had a job in progress using dd. a 3.3Gb file which i started 40 min ago
and it's still running.
Check your dmesg output for errors. That is horribly slow.
John
I found another site showing the use of byte size and dd and after playing with
it a bit i can hold 115 MB/s easy and backup my 3.5 GB file like nothing. I'm
looking through Bacula documents, I don't recall if this can be set or not in
the config files.
36 matches
Mail list logo
