Backup Speed over Network (bottleneck is Source)

[mark_Bayliss]

Hi,

We have just installed Veeam Backup v6 and new to the product. We are testing backups over network (1GB) and getting around 25-30MB/s. Is this good speed or should I be concerned?

Thanks in advance.

Mark

[Gostev]

Hi Mark, only you can define if this is good or bad. As long as you are fitting your backup window, it is good. If you are not fitting your backup window, you should revise your backup infrastructure and upgrade some components. At this speed, your 1Gb network is clearly NOT a bottleneck - some other backup infrastructure component is (data retrieval speed from production storage, backup storage speed, or proxy CPU resources). Just lookup the bottleneck stats in the real-time job statistics to find out what is it. Thanks.

[mark_Bayliss]

Thanks. The bottleneck says 'Source'. What would be the best way for me to troubleshoot this?

Cheers,

Mark

[Gostev]

This would depend on the hypervisor you are using.

[mark_Bayliss]

Thanks.

We are using ESX 5.0. connected via EMC SAN 310.

Mark

[foggy]

What kind of proxy do you use (VM/physical, default/dedicated, configuration) and which transport mode is utilized during backup? You can see the transport mode used in the job realtime statistics right after the name of the proxy picked up.

[mark_Bayliss]

Hi,

The backup mode is NBD - network. The proxy is physical on the same server as Veeam. The physical server is also connected to the SAN. Now why is NBD backups and not direct. Suggestions?

Also, when we installed the Veeam software the physical host wasn't connected to the SAN at the time.

Cheers,

Mark

[Gostev]

Hi Mark, do you have the direct SAN access patch installed from the known issues sticky in the main forum?

[mark_Bayliss]

Thanks. Veeam is now backing up from SAN;NBT

Still slow and the bottleneck is switching between network and target. Might log a case.

Cheers,

Mark

[foggy]

What backup method do you use? Note that reversed incremental mode puts 3x I/O load on target comparing to forward incremental (although provides lower disk space usage). Or, get a faster backup target.

[Gostev]

Yep, there is little point in logging the case here... just get faster backup target - or change backup mode to incremental to reduce impact on backup storage (at the cost of backup set size though).