-
- Influencer
- Posts: 10
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Aug 24, 2013 2:00 am
- Full Name: Mark Peterman
- Contact:
Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
Setup:
Veeam B&R 7 Enterprise Plus
Windows 8 Pro
OS on SSD
SQLServer on same machine on SSD
Repository on same machine (Externally connected Powervault)
RAM: 24GB
CPU: 3.6GHz Xeon 6core
Backup Type:
Forward Incr. With Synth and Transform
Backup Chain:
4 Restore points ~ 40GB each
1 Full ~ 1.2TB
Performance:
Repository Disk Processing Rate: 30-40%
OS Disk Processing Rate: 0-2%
CPU: 16-18%
RAM: 18-20%
Transform time: ~ 2.5 hrs
Questions
Why is Veeam not using more resources?
If the transform was run on a supercomputer would it go faster?
If so, why?
What is the bottleneck here?
Veeam B&R 7 Enterprise Plus
Windows 8 Pro
OS on SSD
SQLServer on same machine on SSD
Repository on same machine (Externally connected Powervault)
RAM: 24GB
CPU: 3.6GHz Xeon 6core
Backup Type:
Forward Incr. With Synth and Transform
Backup Chain:
4 Restore points ~ 40GB each
1 Full ~ 1.2TB
Performance:
Repository Disk Processing Rate: 30-40%
OS Disk Processing Rate: 0-2%
CPU: 16-18%
RAM: 18-20%
Transform time: ~ 2.5 hrs
Questions
Why is Veeam not using more resources?
If the transform was run on a supercomputer would it go faster?
If so, why?
What is the bottleneck here?
-
- Veeam Software
- Posts: 21139
- Liked: 2141 times
- Joined: Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am
- Full Name: Alexander Fogelson
- Contact:
Re: Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
Mark, may I ask you what is the bottleneck according to the job statistics window?
-
- Influencer
- Posts: 10
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Aug 24, 2013 2:00 am
- Full Name: Mark Peterman
- Contact:
Re: Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
The Bottleneck statistics are not updated during the transform process.
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 6035
- Liked: 2860 times
- Joined: Jun 05, 2009 12:57 pm
- Full Name: Tom Sightler
- Contact:
Re: Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
Target storage random I/O performance most likely. You didn't tell us anything about the characteristics of the repository (number/type of drives, RAID type), nor the size of your backups, both full and incremental. With this information it's generally pretty easy to estimate the time.markp wrote:What is the bottleneck here?
That being said, 2.5 hours for a week worth of transform is actually quite good. How long does your full backup take?
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 6035
- Liked: 2860 times
- Joined: Jun 05, 2009 12:57 pm
- Full Name: Tom Sightler
- Contact:
Re: Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
Oh, I see you did mention the size of the restore points, 4 x 40GB, so that's 160GB of data to be transformed. Since you are using the term "tranform" does that mean you have the "transform forward incremental into rollbacks" option selected, or just a synthetic full? Details on the number and type of disks in the Powervault are also useful.
-
- Influencer
- Posts: 10
- Liked: 1 time
- Joined: Aug 24, 2013 2:00 am
- Full Name: Mark Peterman
- Contact:
Re: Performance: Forward Incr. with Transform
I didn't think the repository information was needed as the disk was only active 30-40% of the time. This meant to me that the physical array could not be the bottleneck because it was not being pushed to 100% active time. I added another incremental and reran the transform. As I would have expected on the previous run the disk activity went to 100% this time. I knew that the bottleneck should be the physical array due to low random IOPS of SATA disks (even if there are 14). I am able to give the server as much RAM as needed though its a pity that it cannot be used in some way to help with the transform process. Mark this as resolved.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests