If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: As a side note: Much to my disappointment I found bad results last nite in my over the network Acronis of one of my servers to my current backup server (test server that i was doing the hdd to hdd testing on, where I was getting 300gb partition done in 4hrs with acronis on the same machine).. My results going across gigabit ethernet using acronis, set to normal compression (not high or max, wondering if increase compression should speed things along)... Size of partiton: 336GB or 334064MB (RAID5, sata 150) Time to complete: 9hrs, 1min (541 mins or 32460 seconds) Compressed size at normal: 247 GB Destination: Single Volume, SATAII (seq writes 55 MB/s bypassing windows cache, 38 MB/s not bypassing windows cache).. Yes i dont know why when testing with sisandra and not bypassing the cache the numbers are LESS but they are 10.29 MB/sec actual rate *Using qcheck going from the source to the destination I get 450 Mbps to 666 Mbps (use 450 as the avg = 56.25 MB/s So the max rate I could possibily expect would be 56 MB/s if the writes on the destination occurred at this rate. Any thoughts on how to get this network backup up in value? Thoughts on running simultaneous jobs across the network if I enable both Gigabit ports on the destination server (how would I do this, ie: do I have to do trunking or just set another ip on the other port and direct the backup to that ip\e$ ) IE: If i end up using Acronis there is no way to do a job that will sequentially do each server, I'd have to either know when the job stops to start up the next server to be backed up on each weeks full.. so the only way I figured around this was to do 2 servers at once on dual gigabit? I have intel pro cards in alot of the servers, but I dont see any way to set jumbo frames either. My switch is a Dlink DGS-1248T (gigabit, managed). The controller card on the source server in this case is 3ware escalade 8506-4lp PCI-x sataI while the one on the destination is ARC-1120 pci-x 8 port sataII.. I'm assuming these are both very good cards.. I dont know how they compare to the Raidcore though? Still alittle confused on the SATA vs SCSI argument too.. the basic rule should be that if alot of simultaneous hits are going on.. SCSI is better.. but why? Still unsure if each drive on a scsi chain has divided bandwith of say 320 mB/s.. same for SATA, each cable divided from the 3 Gbps rate or each has 3 Gb/s.. if both devices have dedicated bandwidth for any given drive, then what makes SCSI superior to SATA... Are you sure your bottleneck is not the compression? Retry this without compression for a reference value. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well I started this one around 4:30pm and its 10:30.. been 6 hours , it says 3 to go.. that would still be 9 hours or so, I turned compression off, so we shall c.. not looking good though.. still nowhere near the bandwidth it should be using (Did a sisandra test to compare.. sisandra was also coming in around 61 MB/sec). |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote:
On Mar 30, 4:15 pm, Arno Wagner wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: [...] Are you sure your bottleneck is not the compression? Retry this without compression for a reference value. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well I started this one around 4:30pm and its 10:30.. been 6 hours , it says 3 to go.. that would still be 9 hours or so, I turned compression off, so we shall c.. not looking good though.. still nowhere near the bandwidth it should be using (Did a sisandra test to compare.. sisandra was also coming in around 61 MB/sec). Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote:
Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote: Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. With maximum compression? Ok, then it is not a CPU issue. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. There seems to be some problem with the network. One test you can try is pushing, say, 10 GB or so of data through the network to the target drive and see how long that takes. If that works with expected speed, then there is some issue with the type of traffic your software generates. Difficult to debug without sniffing the traffic. One other thing you shoulkd do is to create some test setup, that allows you to test the speed in 5-10 minutes, otherwise this will literally take forever to figure out. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. I agree that jumbo-frames are not the issue. They can increase throughput by 10% or so, but your problem is an order of magnitude bigger. Here is an additional test: Connect the two computers directly with a short CAT5e cable and see whether things get fater then. Arno |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
On Apr 2, 10:32 am, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote: Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. With maximum compression? Ok, then it is not a CPU issue. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. There seems to be some problem with the network. One test you can try is pushing, say, 10 GB or so of data through the network to the target drive and see how long that takes. If that works with expected speed, then there is some issue with the type of traffic your software generates. Difficult to debug without sniffing the traffic. One other thing you shoulkd do is to create some test setup, that allows you to test the speed in 5-10 minutes, otherwise this will literally take forever to figure out. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. I agree that jumbo-frames are not the issue. They can increase throughput by 10% or so, but your problem is an order of magnitude bigger. Here is an additional test: Connect the two computers directly with a short CAT5e cable and see whether things get fater then. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just tried a 10gb file across the ethernet.. 4m 15seconds for 9.31GB .. this seems normal to me. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
markm75 wrote:
.... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. While I have no specific solution to suggest, it is possible that the problem is not network bandwidth but network latency, which after the entire stack is taken into account can add up to hundreds of microseconds per transaction. If the storage interactions performed by the backup software (in contrast to simple streaming file copies) are both small (say, a few KB apiece) and 'chatty' (such that such a transaction occurs for every modest-size storage transfer) this could significantly compromise network throughput (since the per-transaction overhead could increase by close to a couple of orders of magnitude compared to microsecond-level local ones). Another remote possibility is that for some reason transferring across the network when using the backup software is suppressing write-back caching at the destination, causing a missed disk revolution on up to every access (though the worst case would limit throughput to less than 8 MB/sec if Windows is destaging data in its characteristic 64 KB increments, and you are apparently doing somewhat better than that). - bill |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:32 am, Arno Wagner wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote: Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. With maximum compression? Ok, then it is not a CPU issue. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. There seems to be some problem with the network. One test you can try is pushing, say, 10 GB or so of data through the network to the target drive and see how long that takes. If that works with expected speed, then there is some issue with the type of traffic your software generates. Difficult to debug without sniffing the traffic. One other thing you shoulkd do is to create some test setup, that allows you to test the speed in 5-10 minutes, otherwise this will literally take forever to figure out. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. I agree that jumbo-frames are not the issue. They can increase throughput by 10% or so, but your problem is an order of magnitude bigger. Here is an additional test: Connect the two computers directly with a short CAT5e cable and see whether things get fater then. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just tried a 10gb file across the ethernet.. 4m 15seconds for 9.31GB .. this seems normal to me. That is about 36MB/s, far lower than the stated 60MB/s benchmark. If the slowdown on a linear, streamed write is that big, maybe the slopw backup you experience is just due to the write strategy of the backup software. Seems to me the fileserver OS could be not too suitable for its task.... Arno |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
On Apr 2, 6:25 pm, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 2, 10:32 am, Arno Wagner wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote: Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. With maximum compression? Ok, then it is not a CPU issue. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. There seems to be some problem with the network. One test you can try is pushing, say, 10 GB or so of data through the network to the target drive and see how long that takes. If that works with expected speed, then there is some issue with the type of traffic your software generates. Difficult to debug without sniffing the traffic. One other thing you shoulkd do is to create some test setup, that allows you to test the speed in 5-10 minutes, otherwise this will literally take forever to figure out. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. I agree that jumbo-frames are not the issue. They can increase throughput by 10% or so, but your problem is an order of magnitude bigger. Here is an additional test: Connect the two computers directly with a short CAT5e cable and see whether things get fater then. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just tried a 10gb file across the ethernet.. 4m 15seconds for 9.31GB .. this seems normal to me. That is about 36MB/s, far lower than the stated 60MB/s benchmark. If the slowdown on a linear, streamed write is that big, maybe the slopw backup you experience is just due to the write strategy of the backup software. Seems to me the fileserver OS could be not too suitable for its task.... Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well I know when i did the tests with BackupExec.. at least locally.. they would start off high.. 2000mB/min.. by hour 4 it was down to 1000 by the end down to 385 MB/min.. with BackupExec if I did one big 300gb file, locally, it stayed around 2000, if there was a mixture then it went down gradually. Of course acronis imaging worked fine locally, so it must be some network transfer issue with the software.. I'll try ShadowProtect next and see how it fares. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)?
On Apr 2, 6:25 pm, Arno Wagner wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 2, 10:32 am, Arno Wagner wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 wrote: On Apr 1, 10:27 am, "markm75" wrote: Hmm. Did you do the Sandra test over the network? If not, maybe you have a 100Mb/sec link somewhere in there? Youer observed 10.29MB/s would perfectly fit such a link-speed, as it is very close to 100Mb/s raw speed (8 * 10.29 = 82.3Mb/s, add a bit for ethernet overhead...). Might be a bad cable, router port or network card. I have had this type of problem several times with Gigabit Ethernet. Arno Yep.. it was done over the network and yielded 60 MB/s btw.. that uncompressed backup took about 11 hours to complete (again, same size on same drive was about 4 hours), with normal compression about 9 over network.. I'm trying max compression now... Very very bad results with max compression, took like 12 or 13 hours... This baffles me.. as I know that I can do the backup on the same drive locally in 4 hours on that machine.. With maximum compression? Ok, then it is not a CPU issue. and I know I can do the same type backup on the remote (destination) as well.. so going from D on ServerA to E on ServerB should just be a limitation of the network, which benches at 60 MB/s in all of my tests. There seems to be some problem with the network. One test you can try is pushing, say, 10 GB or so of data through the network to the target drive and see how long that takes. If that works with expected speed, then there is some issue with the type of traffic your software generates. Difficult to debug without sniffing the traffic. One other thing you shoulkd do is to create some test setup, that allows you to test the speed in 5-10 minutes, otherwise this will literally take forever to figure out. Again, I dont think jumbo frames would help.. but I cant even turn them on , as each nic on each end doesnt have this setting, not sure what else to test here or fix. I agree that jumbo-frames are not the issue. They can increase throughput by 10% or so, but your problem is an order of magnitude bigger. Here is an additional test: Connect the two computers directly with a short CAT5e cable and see whether things get fater then. Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - just tried a 10gb file across the ethernet.. 4m 15seconds for 9.31GB .. this seems normal to me. That is about 36MB/s, far lower than the stated 60MB/s benchmark. If the slowdown on a linear, streamed write is that big, maybe the slopw backup you experience is just due to the write strategy of the backup software. Seems to me the fileserver OS could be not too suitable for its task.... Arno- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm currently running an image using ShadowProtect Server, its getting 27 MB/s... stating 3-4 hours remaining, after 10 minutes.. we shall see how it does in the end.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Raid0 or Raid5 for network to disk backup (Gigabit)? | markm75 | Storage (alternative) | 41 | April 18th 07 09:37 PM |
change raid5 to raid1 / backup&restore partition / Arconis? | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 2 | February 8th 07 11:57 PM |
I was unhappy with my Gigabit Network card | George Hester | General | 3 | July 5th 06 08:52 AM |
SATA RAID5 disk replacement: same type of disk? | Richard NL | Storage (alternative) | 9 | February 3rd 06 01:42 PM |
RAID0 vs. RAID5 - Benchmark | Ingo Seibold | Storage (alternative) | 3 | November 11th 04 05:07 PM |