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
I am getting anywhere from 4 to 40 M Bytes/second transfer rate.
sample from log (several lines omitted):
23-May 04:05 ip-bacula-sd JobId 3834: 3307 Issuing autochanger "unload slot
10, drive 0" command.
23-May 04:38 ip-bacula-sd JobId 3834: Job write elapsed time = 00:29:38,
Transfer rate = 21
>
> 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
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
wit
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/
>
> 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
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 o
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 connect
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:26 PM, skipunk 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 within the
> next few hours
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
> 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 des
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
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Richard Scobie 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 ethtools
>> nic 2
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 look
> 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
-
> 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
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
(o
> 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
-
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 t
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 t
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 aro
> 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
23 matches
Mail list logo
