Comprehensive data protection for all workloads
Post Reply
EdwardsCP
Influencer
Posts: 16
Liked: 2 times
Joined: May 20, 2014 8:12 pm
Full Name: Colin Edwards
Contact:

Improving backup job performance (RAID 5 vs RAID 10 Repo)

Post by EdwardsCP »

Running Veeam B&R 8.0.0.2084

Veeam Backup Server, Proxy, and Repository are all on the same server.

I am trying to determine how to solve a performance problem with my backup jobs. Target is being shown as the bottleneck, with % busy usually around:
Source - 10%
Proxy - 1%
Network - 40%
Target - 75%

Backup is running over FC SAN.

Target repo storage is 4x 7.2k RPM SAS drives in RAID 5. They're local disks on the Veeam server.

I'm considering doubling the number of drives in the array to 8 (or even tripling it to 12), and making it RAID 10 instead of 5. Theoretically (based on this calculator http://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl) I think I should see a 333% increase in IOPS by switching to an 8 disk RAID 10, or 500% increase in IOPS using a 12 disk RAID 10. Should I expect that to have a real-world performance increase in 333 or 500 % on the MB/s processing rate of my backup job?


Some example statistics from a recent job are pasted below:

Code: Select all

Duration: 13:43:47
Processing rate: 4 MB/s
Bottleneck: Target

Success 20 Start time 3:00:08 PM Total size 4.0 TB Backup size 2.8 TB
Warning 0 End time 4:43:56 AM (+1) Data read 169.6 GB Dedupe1.3x
Error 0 Duration 13:43:47 Transferred 70.4 GB Compression 1.5x
Details
Name Status Start time End time Size Read Transferred Duration Details
Server1 Success 3:02:36 PM 3:30:58 PM 75.0 GB 2.1 GB 1.5 GB 0:28:22
Server2 Success 3:02:36 PM 3:45:56 PM 75.0 GB 4.8 GB 2.2 GB 0:43:19
Server3 Success 3:02:36 PM 3:07:35 PM 20.0 GB 210.3 MB 39.2 MB 0:04:59
Server4 Success 3:03:51 PM 3:25:42 PM 50.0 GB 383.0 MB 195.5 MB 0:21:50
Server5 Success 3:09:52 PM 3:50:01 PM 160.0 GB 1.9 GB 1.5 GB 0:40:09
Server6 Success 3:23:48 PM 4:23:40 PM 40.0 GB 2.1 GB 1.5 GB 0:59:52
Server7 Success 3:29:29 PM 4:52:05 PM 50.0 GB 3.7 GB 2.5 GB 1:22:36
Server8 Success 3:39:35 PM 4:56:32 PM 100.0 GB 3.2 GB 1.6 GB 1:16:57
Server9 Success 3:41:45 PM 4:52:26 PM 140.0 GB 3.2 GB 2.6 GB 1:10:40
Server10 Success 4:43:56 PM 5:35:17 PM 50.0 GB 2.0 GB 1.4 GB 0:51:20
Server11 Success 4:46:01 PM 3:21:21 AM (+1)275.0 GB 44.8 GB 13.3 GB 10:35:19
Server12 Success 4:47:27 PM 6:14:03 PM 80.0 GB 2.7 GB 1.7 GB 1:26:36
Server13 Success 5:25:21 PM 7:55:51 PM 240.0 GB 9.3 GB 5.6 GB 2:30:30
Server14 Success 5:50:43 PM 7:16:13 PM 140.0 GB 2.5 GB 1.8 GB 1:25:29
Server15 Success 6:41:14 PM 1:51:45 AM (+1)1.3 TB 27.4 GB 9.4 GB 7:10:30
Server16 Success 7:58:08 PM 4:43:34 AM (+1)270.0 GB 42.4 GB 14.4 GB 8:45:26
Server17 Success 9:03:30 PM 10:57:58 PM 160.0 GB 2.8 GB 1.9 GB 1:54:28
Server18 Success 10:42:46 PM 1:34:44 AM (+1)490.0 GB 5.0 GB 2.3 GB 2:51:58
Server19 Success 1:18:06 AM 3:47:42 AM 360.0 GB 6.8 GB 3.3 GB 2:29:35
Server20 Success 2:25:57 AM 3:46:27 AM 40.0 GB 2.1 GB 1.6 GB 1:20:29
andreash
Enthusiast
Posts: 46
Liked: 7 times
Joined: Dec 04, 2013 8:13 am
Full Name: Andreas Holzhammer
Contact:

Re: Improving backup job performance (RAID 5 vs RAID 10 Repo

Post by andreash »

I had a similar situation in the past. Performance largely depends on the backup mode, in my experience much more than on the underlying raid layer.

After switching from RAID5 to 10x4TB 7200rpm in RAID10 via 3GBit/s iSCSI I am getting these figures:
Reverse Incremental: 14MB/s, Bottleneck Network or Target
Forever Forward: 80MB/s, Bottleneck Source
The source is an FC attached EMC SAN. I don't think the number of disks in the raid10 repository matters a lot in my scenario.

Regards,
Andreas
EdwardsCP
Influencer
Posts: 16
Liked: 2 times
Joined: May 20, 2014 8:12 pm
Full Name: Colin Edwards
Contact:

Re: Improving backup job performance (RAID 5 vs RAID 10 Repo

Post by EdwardsCP »

Thanks for sharing, Andreas.

I am running Reverse Incremental.
foggy
Veeam Software
Posts: 21069
Liked: 2115 times
Joined: Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am
Full Name: Alexander Fogelson
Contact:

Re: Improving backup job performance (RAID 5 vs RAID 10 Repo

Post by foggy »

The number of spindles does matter, as well as disks RPM, and RAID type. With reversed incremental, switching to RAID10 should indeed give you performance increase due to much less write penalty it has.
EdwardsCP
Influencer
Posts: 16
Liked: 2 times
Joined: May 20, 2014 8:12 pm
Full Name: Colin Edwards
Contact:

Re: Improving backup job performance (RAID 5 vs RAID 10 Repo

Post by EdwardsCP » 1 person likes this post

Just a quick follow-up here in case anyone is reading this thread in the future. We migrated to RAID 10 w/ twelve 7200rpm disks. This resulted in the backup job completing twice as fast as it was on RAID 5 w/ four 7200rpm disks.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 268 guests