Using tape as a backup target
Post Reply
dweb
Novice
Posts: 3
Liked: never
Joined: Mar 05, 2014 9:24 am
Full Name: Daniel
Contact:

Tape blocksize

Post by dweb »

Hi guys,

any chance to increase the tape blocksize?
We have a LTO4 and only about 50-70mb/s... which is way too low.

The local RAID which is storing the backup files (which are duplicated to tape) is running at about 600mb/s with 256kb blocks.. - so this is not the bottleneck.

Greets

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 19820
Liked: 2125 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by veremin »

We have a LTO4 and only about 50-70mb/s... which is way too low.
Hi, Daniel, is this a speed of tape job? What type of job it is file to tape or backup to tape one? Also, what component is indicated as bottleneck? Thanks.

dweb
Novice
Posts: 3
Liked: never
Joined: Mar 05, 2014 9:24 am
Full Name: Daniel
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by dweb »

Hi,

thanks for the answer.

The Tape-Job identifies the Target as bottleneck.
Also it is a backup to tape job.
Yes, this is the speed of the tape job.

Greets

mazur1000
Influencer
Posts: 23
Liked: 1 time
Joined: Feb 20, 2014 6:54 am
Full Name: alex mazur
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by mazur1000 »

I have the same problem. When backup to tape speed from 50 to 100 MB per second. When copying to another disk rack 200. bottleneck is Network. tape lto 6

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 13678
Liked: 1375 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by Dima P. »

Hello,
As far as I am concerned, data block size in tape functionality is set automatically according to output from tape library during session start.

In order to improve the tape library performance (in case the bottleneck is target), make sure the hardware compression on the tape job is disabled.

Also, I can say that we are awaiting for tape performance improvements in the upcoming major release, meanwhile if you are experiencing performance issue that heavily impact your infrastructure – please, open a support case. Thank you.

dweb
Novice
Posts: 3
Liked: never
Joined: Mar 05, 2014 9:24 am
Full Name: Daniel
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by dweb »

Any release date known? v8 then? or v7.1 or something like that?

And yes, hardware compression is and was disabled.

Very disappointing.

Dima P.
Product Manager
Posts: 13678
Liked: 1375 times
Joined: Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Full Name: Dmitry Popov
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by Dima P. »

Daniel,

No release date yet, but improvements we are talking about will be included in next major version of the product. Thank you.

siluro
Lurker
Posts: 1
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 02, 2014 1:55 am
Full Name: Peter Illari
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by siluro »

We are experiencing a similar scenario with our Dell TL4000 library connected via iSCSI. Veeam jobs run at about 45-50 MB/s. Dell support were able to get a much better transfer rate using their testing tools at a 256 KB blocksize. Their advice was to "increase tape drive block size in your backup software".

ChrisPriest
Lurker
Posts: 2
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 15, 2014 1:31 pm
Full Name: Chris Priest
Contact:

[MERGED] : Exceptionally Slow Tape Transfer Speed

Post by ChrisPriest »

Hi All,

We are currently evaluating Veeam B&R 7, on the whole, I love the product, zero failures and very reliable.

My only concern is the tape backup speed, I am using a Backup to Tape job, backing up the Backup Job (Disk) to tape. I have around 4.2TB to transfer to tape and it's only backing up at 32 MB/s, the drive is a Powervault 124T SAS with a 6Gb/s controller.

I know that tape support is new and the focus was on functionality, but I would have expected to see better tape throughput.

The Bottleneck is being identified as the target.

I am using the standard Microsoft Drivers under Windows 2008 R2

Does anyone have any ideas what I might do to increase performance?

Best Regards
Chris

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 19820
Liked: 2125 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by veremin »

Hi, Chris,

Your post has been merged into existing discussion regarding similar matter. So, please, take a look at the suggestions (disable HW compression) and general explanation provided above.

Thanks.

ChrisPriest
Lurker
Posts: 2
Liked: never
Joined: Apr 15, 2014 1:31 pm
Full Name: Chris Priest
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by ChrisPriest »

Hi,

Yes I have checked all the above, but I still only get a constant 32 MB/s, so far the tape job has been running for 30+ hours :)

veremin
Product Manager
Posts: 19820
Liked: 2125 times
Joined: Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm
Full Name: Vladimir Eremin
Contact:

Re: Tape blocksize

Post by veremin »

As stated above, some enhancements over tape job performance are scheduled for the next release. In the meantime, are you archiving only one huge backup job or "4.2TB" is combined size of all "source" backup jobs? In the latter case, you can, probably, split the source backup jobs among different backup to tape ones and run them on different basis.

Besides, you can always open a ticket with our support team and let them confirm your environment (may be, there are some factors affecting tape job performance seriously).

Thanks.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests