-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
All of our copy jobs which are using Wan Accelerators always list TargetWAN as the bottleneck. The Target Wan Accelerator is sitting on reasonably fast SSD's and utilisation is minimal. The WAN link is 50Mps, but I rarely see utilisation go over 10-20Mps.
However I can see that during the job there are lots of reads on the target datastore. Am I correct in thinking that the "TargetWAN bottleneck" will also cover Cache Misses where the Accelerator reads from the target repository and uses it as a secondary cache?
If that assumption is correct I will make another one, that is, if I increase the Global Cache size, it should help to improve performance by shifting more work from the repository to the cache SSD's?
However I can see that during the job there are lots of reads on the target datastore. Am I correct in thinking that the "TargetWAN bottleneck" will also cover Cache Misses where the Accelerator reads from the target repository and uses it as a secondary cache?
If that assumption is correct I will make another one, that is, if I increase the Global Cache size, it should help to improve performance by shifting more work from the repository to the cache SSD's?
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Hi Nick,
Did I get it correct - copy jobs show that the bottleneck is on the target side whereas drive and network on the target accelerator are not fully utilized?
Did I get it correct - copy jobs show that the bottleneck is on the target side whereas drive and network on the target accelerator are not fully utilized?
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Copy jobs are showing the TargetWAN as the bottleneck, but the SSD's used for the Accelerator are hardly being used. The target repository is under reasonable load, but not from writes.
Questions was mainly around what TargetWAN bottleneck includes and if the behaviour I am seeing is a result of too many cache misses.
Questions was mainly around what TargetWAN bottleneck includes and if the behaviour I am seeing is a result of too many cache misses.
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Well, first of all, I'd check with Svc.VeeamWANSvc.log file. There you may find some info which part of copying takes most of the time.
Thank you.
Thank you.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Thanks for the hint. Are you referring to something like this line:-
Timings: PushData 3546 Read 8018 ReadImpl 2641 WaitForData 410
Timings: PushData 3546 Read 8018 ReadImpl 2641 WaitForData 410
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
I'm reffering to something like
As I remember it should be located in
C:\Users\All Users\Veeam\Backup\
Code: Select all
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| Performance statistics:
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SourceDiskRead 58 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SourceWriteCmdFile 16 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SourceCompressCmdFile 194 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SourceDeleteCmdFile 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SendCmdFile 39 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| SendWAIT 2792 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetDiskRead 287 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetDiskWrite 97 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetReadCmdFile 24 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetDecompressCmdFile 15 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetDeleteCmdFile 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetWAITCmdFile 1871 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetTotalCmdFileProcessing920 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetGlobalInit 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetGlobalWrite 417 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetGlobalRead 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TargetGlobalCommit 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgDiskProcessing 2614 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgInitialization 37 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgInitNonZeroExtents 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgInitCBT 0 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgInitDigests 13 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgInitGlobalDedup 15 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgFinalization 35 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgCommitGlobalDedup 15 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgWAIT 136 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| AlgBlockProcessing 2416 sec
[05.10.2013 12:29:33] < 9292> srct| TASK COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY, elapsed: 2841.4560 sec
C:\Users\All Users\Veeam\Backup\
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Ah, gotcha I was looking in the target Wan log file. Here is that section from the source
I'm guessing the TargetDiskRead relates to the high number of reads I am seeing on the repository?
Code: Select all
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| ___________________________________________________________________
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Dedup statistics:
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Total handled size 15.3438 GB 100%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| New data size 0.9189 GB 5%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Cur disk dedup 0.1742 GB 1%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Prev disk dedup 1.1997 GB 7%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Prev disk no write dedup 11.9447 GB 77%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Global disk dedup 1.1063 GB 7%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Zero data size 0.0000 GB 0%
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| ___________________________________________________________________
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Network statistics:
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Received cmd: 0.0002 GB
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Send cmd: 0.0002 GB
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Received transport: 0.0000 GB
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Send transport: 0.3734 GB
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> wan| Corrupted blocks: 0
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| Performance statistics:
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| SourceDiskRead 142 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| SourceDiskDirectRead 21 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| SourceCompression 15 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| SendWanData 40 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| SourceCommandsWrite 3 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetDiskRead 210 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetDiskWrite 10 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetWAITCmdFile 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetTotalCmdFileProcessing364 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetGlobalInit 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetGlobalWrite 30 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetGlobalRead 99 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetGlobalCommit 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetDecompression 3 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TargetGlobalAgentRead 11 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgDiskProcessing 299 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgInitialization 24 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgInitNonZeroExtents 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgInitCBT 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgInitDigests 8 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgInitGlobalDedup 8 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgFinalization 15 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgCommitGlobalDedup 0 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgBlockProcessing 110 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgManifestProcessing 51 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgWaitManifest 54 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| AlgWaitTrgApply 85 sec
[23.06.2015 12:43:12] < 16484> srct| TASK COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY, elapsed: 431.6880 sec
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Nick,
Please contact support team so they can take a look at the logs.
Please contact support team so they can take a look at the logs.
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 635
- Liked: 174 times
- Joined: Jun 18, 2012 8:58 pm
- Full Name: Alan Bolte
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Nick,
I believe your interpretation is accurate, but I'm not aware of any guidelines established yet for effectiveness of larger cache on this type of bottleneck. That is, I'm sure it'll help, but I can't say whether doubling your cache size will lead to a 1% or 100% improvement.
I believe your interpretation is accurate, but I'm not aware of any guidelines established yet for effectiveness of larger cache on this type of bottleneck. That is, I'm sure it'll help, but I can't say whether doubling your cache size will lead to a 1% or 100% improvement.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Ok, that's good to hear I'm on the correct line of thinking. I assume increasing the cache on the Target won't need all the digests to be recalculated and it will just start using the extra space?
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Nick,
In case Traget WAN accelerator has not found anything in its cache it may issue some read requests to repo:
How many BackupJobs/Backups do you have in average per single BackupCopyJob?
How many RPs does your target repo contain in total?
Also, please specify, what kind of data do you have inside your backups?
Which OS is backed up?
Thank you!
In case Traget WAN accelerator has not found anything in its cache it may issue some read requests to repo:
I'd like to ask you a few questions regarding you backup infrastructure, if you don't mind.Additionally, Veeam Backup & Replication analyzes restore points that have been previously copied to the target side. If duplicates are found, Veeam Backup & Replication does not copy such blocks over the WAN but takes them from the global cache.
How many BackupJobs/Backups do you have in average per single BackupCopyJob?
How many RPs does your target repo contain in total?
Also, please specify, what kind of data do you have inside your backups?
Which OS is backed up?
Thank you!
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Sure,
Its ranging from around 4-15 vm's per backup copy job
Keeping 2 restore points per job
Real mixture of OS's Server 2003,2008,2012 including normal SME stuff SQL,Exchange, fileserver...etc
Its ranging from around 4-15 vm's per backup copy job
Keeping 2 restore points per job
Real mixture of OS's Server 2003,2008,2012 including normal SME stuff SQL,Exchange, fileserver...etc
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
The systems and data you've mentioned has to be cached well, due to a fairly high rate of duplicate data.
Ok, then what's going on in statistics? It usually tells you how much data has been obtained from cache.
i.e.
Thank you.
Ok, then what's going on in statistics? It usually tells you how much data has been obtained from cache.
i.e.
Also what's your WANaccelerator SSD's capacity in relation to total size of all backups that go through it?Hard disk 1 (4.9 GB) 215.0 MB read at 14 MB/s
5.4 MB transferred over network, 415,7 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
Thank you.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Few examples
24/06/2015 04:17:16 :: 781.7 MB transferred over network, 199.2 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 04:36:38 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 633.2 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 03:55:23 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 909.8 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 03:30:48 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 550.9 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
The target global cache size is set to 70GB, there is around 4TB of raw VM's and the backup copy total size is around 2TB.
24/06/2015 04:17:16 :: 781.7 MB transferred over network, 199.2 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 04:36:38 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 633.2 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 03:55:23 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 909.8 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
24/06/2015 03:30:48 :: 1.2 GB transferred over network, 550.9 MB obtained from WAN Accelerator cache
The target global cache size is set to 70GB, there is around 4TB of raw VM's and the backup copy total size is around 2TB.
-
- Product Manager
- Posts: 6551
- Liked: 765 times
- Joined: May 19, 2015 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Are you using Many-To-One WAN acceleration model?obroni wrote: The target global cache size is set to 70GB, there is around 4TB of raw VM's and the backup copy total size is around 2TB.
70 Gb cache seems to be small for such amount of data, I'd try to increase the amount of cache, as Allan has already suggested.
Please refer to this guide.
P.S. After tweaking, please share your results here, if don't mind.
Thank you.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 131
- Liked: 22 times
- Joined: Nov 21, 2014 10:50 pm
- Full Name: Nick Fisk
- Contact:
Re: TargetWAN Bottleneck, but not the SSD's
Ok, I've increased it up to 150GB for now. I will let the jobs run over night again and let you know in a couple of days if it has made a difference.
I have read that guide, but in less I'm mistaken there's no guidelines around actual cache sizing, apart from the 10GB per OS on the wan accelerator config wizard.
I have read that guide, but in less I'm mistaken there's no guidelines around actual cache sizing, apart from the 10GB per OS on the wan accelerator config wizard.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests