-
- Expert
- Posts: 145
- Liked: 10 times
- Joined: Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm
- Full Name: Bill Unger
- Contact:
Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp jobs
Here is the environment:
3 Dell PowerEdge R710 servers, all identically configured with 24GB RAM, dual E5530 Xeon procs, and 3TB of local storage
1 Dell PowerVault MD3000i iSCSI SAN
2 Dell PowerConnect 5424 switches
Each ESX box is called ESX1, ESX2, ESX3
All production vms reside on the SAN with processing handled on individual ESX boxes
vCenter is virtualized on a Win2k8 server
ESX1 manages vCenter
ESX2 manages FS1 AND FS2
Veeam is running inside vCenter on ESX1
Veeam has 2 backup jobs:
backs up FS1 from SAN to local storage on ESX1
FS1 size is about 950GB
backs up FS2 from SAN to local storage on ESX3
FS2 size is about 230GB
both jobs are configured identically, aside from the target storage being ESX1 and ESX3
FS1 runs Win2k3, AD, and Exchange
FS2 runs Win2k8 and SQLServer
The backup for FS1 takes 11-14 hours with an average processing rate of about 20 MB/s
The backup for FS2 takes about 8 minutes ( after the initial backup ) with an average processing rate of about 470 MB/s
I have looked everywhere and cannot figure out why there is such a large disparity between the two jobs....
Thanks in advance for any help!
BIll
3 Dell PowerEdge R710 servers, all identically configured with 24GB RAM, dual E5530 Xeon procs, and 3TB of local storage
1 Dell PowerVault MD3000i iSCSI SAN
2 Dell PowerConnect 5424 switches
Each ESX box is called ESX1, ESX2, ESX3
All production vms reside on the SAN with processing handled on individual ESX boxes
vCenter is virtualized on a Win2k8 server
ESX1 manages vCenter
ESX2 manages FS1 AND FS2
Veeam is running inside vCenter on ESX1
Veeam has 2 backup jobs:
backs up FS1 from SAN to local storage on ESX1
FS1 size is about 950GB
backs up FS2 from SAN to local storage on ESX3
FS2 size is about 230GB
both jobs are configured identically, aside from the target storage being ESX1 and ESX3
FS1 runs Win2k3, AD, and Exchange
FS2 runs Win2k8 and SQLServer
The backup for FS1 takes 11-14 hours with an average processing rate of about 20 MB/s
The backup for FS2 takes about 8 minutes ( after the initial backup ) with an average processing rate of about 470 MB/s
I have looked everywhere and cannot figure out why there is such a large disparity between the two jobs....
Thanks in advance for any help!
BIll
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 27371
- Liked: 2799 times
- Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
- Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
- Contact:
Re: Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp j
Hello Bill,
Could you please verify that CBT is enabled for the first backup job? If it is enabled, then please check if it does work for VMs being backed up?
You can easily do that by looking at real-time statistics while virtual disk (VMDK) is processed. Another way would be to check it with our support team via investigating corresponding job log files.
Thank you.
Could you please verify that CBT is enabled for the first backup job? If it is enabled, then please check if it does work for VMs being backed up?
You can easily do that by looking at real-time statistics while virtual disk (VMDK) is processed. Another way would be to check it with our support team via investigating corresponding job log files.
Thank you.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 145
- Liked: 10 times
- Joined: Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm
- Full Name: Bill Unger
- Contact:
Re: Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp j
CBT is enabled.
I restarted the backup job and watched the stats, which report: Backup mode: HOTADD/NDB with changed block tracking
I restarted the backup job and watched the stats, which report: Backup mode: HOTADD/NDB with changed block tracking
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 261
- Liked: 29 times
- Joined: May 03, 2011 12:51 pm
- Full Name: James Pearce
- Contact:
Re: Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp j
CBT needs the VM to be on V7 virtual hardware, btw. Also, Exchange could be the key factor here, as it happens I just posted about that. It runs defrag tasks by default overnight for four hours which touch (change) a huge number of blocks. See http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/arc ... 04504.aspx.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 145
- Liked: 10 times
- Joined: Jun 23, 2010 5:39 pm
- Full Name: Bill Unger
- Contact:
Re: Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp j
VM versions are 7 for both.
Regarding Exchange, it is exchange 2003....
Regarding Exchange, it is exchange 2003....
-
- VP, Product Management
- Posts: 27371
- Liked: 2799 times
- Joined: Mar 30, 2009 9:13 am
- Full Name: Vitaliy Safarov
- Contact:
Re: Performance Differences between 2 nearly identical bkp j
Try choosing local storage on ESX3 to see if makes any difference or not. Besides, this job might also failed over to NBD processing mode.bunger wrote:I restarted the backup job and watched the stats, which report: Backup mode: HOTADD/NDB with changed block tracking
That's true. Please expect to have different processing rates for different VMs, see details in this post: Very different backup speed on VM'sJ1mbo wrote:Also, Exchange could be the key factor here, as it happens I just posted about that.
Well... that explains, here is an existing topic for more info: Slow VM backup with SQL Server 2008 R2 (nevermind the title)bunger wrote:Regarding Exchange, it is exchange 2003....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 97 guests