v9 - Tape performance reports

Everything about backing up to tape

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby Dima P. » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Hi all.

Thanks to all of you for sharing your performance reports and support cases - they helped us to identify the bottlenecks in Veeam B&R code. As a result, now we have a new optimized engine in v9.5!

File to Tape performance has improved by up to 50x when processing large amounts of very small files, making it up to 50% faster than leading legacy tape backup solutions on the same workload. The new engine was tested with 20 million files per job, enabling users to efficiently protect unstructured data to tape or VTL targets.

Other optimizations. Additional optimizations include multiple, under-the-hood enhancements improving stability and performance of GFS archival, parallel processing, tape encryption, file level recovery and catalog operations.


That said all the tape jobs (file to tape, backup to tape and GFS to tape) were optimized to work as fast as possible. Feel free to test tape performance enhancements and do not forget to share the results.

More information regarding new features - Whats new in 9.5
Dima P.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 6517
Liked: 454 times
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: SPb
Full Name: Dmitry Popov

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby McClane » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:21 am

What is the estimated time for building the filetree for the 20 million files that have been used in the test? I'm sitting here waiting for half an hour for about 200k files.
McClane
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 91
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby Dima P. » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:58 pm

Hi McClane,

Will try to update this thread with the results tomorrow. Meanwhile, please clarify are you using bundled SQL Express for Veeam B&R DB and what tape proxy server specifications are (RAM/CPU)? Thanks.
Dima P.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 6517
Liked: 454 times
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: SPb
Full Name: Dmitry Popov

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby McClane » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:40 am

Bundles SQL Express, yes.
Tape server has 64GB RAM and 1 Xeon E5-2620.

The tree build for an incremental backup of 1.4 million files is about 2.5hours. The 250 changed files are backup in 40 seconds then.
In the initial full backup, the build only took 30 minutes.
McClane
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 91
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby McClane » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:36 pm

Anything new on performance comparisons? I would like to know if I can improve something and if this is a viable way of getting one year of daily incrementals from a fileserver on tape for faster restores.
McClane
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 91
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:47 pm

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby Dima P. » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:01 pm 1 person likes this post

Hi McClane,

I am sorry for being late. Here are the results for 9.5 testing.

Source: one million of small files, about 150 GB overall

Test 1. Bundled SQL Express as VBR DB

Location: local storage
Time: 1 hour
Rate: 2000 MB/min

Location: shared folder
Time: 2 hours
Rate: 850 MB/min

Test 2. External SQL server, standard edition

Location: local storage
Time: 45 mins
Rate: 2500 MB/min

Location: shared folder
Time: 1.50 hours
Rate: 1000 MB/min

General recommendation is to use a SQL standard edition, because default local express database can be a bottleneck for file to tape jobs due the memory per instance limitation of 1 GB. Another advice is to use locally attached storage.
Dima P.
Veeam Software
 
Posts: 6517
Liked: 454 times
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: SPb
Full Name: Dmitry Popov

Re: v9 - Tape performance reports

Veeam Logoby McClane » Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:24 pm

That's the complete backup time I assume? I have alone 2.75h just for building the file tree with 1.4 million files with the daily incrementals. The initial full build was much faster. Target and source storage is all 8GB FC, but I don't see any bottleneck. It's just slow. Some CPU load on the fileserver with the backup agent collecting data, but not that much.
McClane
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 91
Liked: 10 times
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:47 pm

Previous

Return to Tape



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests