Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-28 Thread Johan Redelinghuys
Hi

This is what we usually do to find the best performance in an
environment. It is good and well to say 64 buffers with a size of 262144
but this is not necessarily the best in another environment. For you
environment, do the following.  

1. Take a 2 to 3 GB file and back it up without any buffer files. Take
note of throughput. This will be base throughput (8 x 65536).
2. Do same test with 16 buffers and size of 65536, then 32 with 65536
and then 64 with 65536. Take note of best throughput with 65536 size.
3. Do same test with 16 buffers and size of 131072, then 32 with 131072
and then 64 with 131072. Take note of best throughput with 131072 size.
4. Do same test with 16 buffers and size of 262144, then 32 with 262144
and then 64 with 262144. Take note of best throughput with 262144 size.
5. Then set your buffers to the best throughput from tests from 1,2 and
3. 
6. Remember to add same buffer files on your media servers.

Usually the best settings are:
In /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config - 

NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS = 32
NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE = 32
SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072

As everybody said, 3072 will def give you shared memory issues.

JR


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Quan
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:40 PM
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

Sure,

NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS 64
SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS   262144

/Steve
---
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Steve,

 Can you share what is the Number / Size of data buffers set in your
environment.


+--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

+--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


[Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-24 Thread NBU

Steve,

Can you share what is the Number / Size of data buffers set in your environment.

+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-24 Thread JC Cheney
1. I really REALLY hope you do not have number of data buffers set to
3072; that's ludicrously high. A reasonable number for LTO3 drives would
be 32 with size data buffers of 262144. Don't forget that the amount of
shared memory required by NBU is size data buffers * num data buffers *
mpx * number of drives. With your settings your looking at 400Mb of
shared memory before you take into account mpx and 

2. With solaris 10 you should not be changing the /etc/system file - a
lot of settings that you'd put in there for Sol9 and earlier are now
deprecated or obsolete (as per SUN's documentation in system tuning);
IPC tuning is now done by using solaris 10 projects (/etc/projects
file).



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NBU
Sent: 23 July 2008 13:40
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10


Friends,

Fine tunning has been done in /etc/system also but no luck.

Following is systems setting:

We have set Net_BUFFER SIZE and
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS= 3072

Following is the kernel parameter of Solaris 10 OS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # prtctl $$
-bash: prtctl: command not found
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # prctl $$
process: 15640: -bash
NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
process.max-port-events
privileged 65.5K - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
process.max-msg-messages
privileged 8.19K - deny -
system 4.29G max deny -
process.max-msg-qbytes
privileged 64.0KB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
process.max-sem-ops
privileged 512 - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
process.max-sem-nsems
privileged 512 - deny -
system 32.8K max deny -
process.max-address-space
privileged 16.0EB max deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
process.max-file-descriptor
basic 256 - deny 15640
privileged 65.5K - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
process.max-core-size
privileged 8.00EB max deny -
system 8.00EB max deny -
process.max-stack-size
basic 8.00MB - deny 15640
privileged 8.00EB - deny -
system 8.00EB max deny -
process.max-data-size
privileged 16.0EB max deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
process.max-file-size
privileged 8.00EB max deny,signal=XFSZ -
system 8.00EB max deny -
process.max-cpu-time
privileged 18.4Es inf signal=XCPU -
system 18.4Es inf none -
task.max-cpu-time
system 18.4Es inf none -
task.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-contracts
privileged 10.0K - deny -
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-device-locked-memory
privileged 3.92GB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-locked-memory
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-port-ids
privileged 8.19K - deny -
system 65.5K max deny -
project.max-shm-memory
privileged 48.0GB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-shm-ids
privileged 512 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-msg-ids
privileged 256 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-sem-ids
privileged 512 - deny -
system 16.8M max deny -
project.max-crypto-memory
privileged 15.7GB - deny -
system 16.0EB max deny -
project.max-tasks
system 2.15G max deny -
project.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
project.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
system 65.5K max none -
zone.max-swap
system 16.0EB max deny -
zone.max-locked-memory
system 16.0EB max deny -
zone.max-shm-memory
system 16.0EB max deny -
zone.max-shm-ids
system 16.8M max deny -
zone.max-sem-ids
system 16.8M max deny -
zone.max-msg-ids
system 16.8M max deny -
zone.max-lwps
system 2.15G max deny -
zone.cpu-shares
privileged 1 - none -
system 65.5K max none -

+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-24 Thread Steve Quan
Sure,

NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS 64
SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS   262144

/Steve
---
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Steve,

 Can you share what is the Number / Size of data buffers set in your 
 environment.

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


[Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread NBU

Hi forum,

I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 MP4. 
Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am facing is 
when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with error code 
89.

Experts need your help on this.

thanks

+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Justin Piszcz


On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Hi forum,

 I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 MP4. 
 Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am facing is 
 when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with error 
 code 89.

 Experts need your help on this.

 thanks

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Error 89 is shared memory problems, read the archive on how to fix that 
for Solaris 10, generally you need to increase your SHMMAX value in the 
kernel (Linux) in Solaris it has been awhile :)

Justin.
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Dave Markham
I'd be interested in this too, as i'd heard you didnt need to bother 
with /etc/system tuning in Solaris 10.

Cheers

Justin Piszcz wrote:
 On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:

   
 Hi forum,

 I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 MP4. 
 Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am facing 
 is when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with error 
 code 89.

 Experts need your help on this.

 thanks

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

 

 Error 89 is shared memory problems, read the archive on how to fix that 
 for Solaris 10, generally you need to increase your SHMMAX value in the 
 kernel (Linux) in Solaris it has been awhile :)

 Justin.
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

   

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Gregory Demilde


Normally you shouldn't  but some of the shared momory settings are 
still working and can only be tuned by /etc/system


Dave Markham a écrit :
I'd be interested in this too, as i'd heard you didnt need to bother 
with /etc/system tuning in Solaris 10.


Cheers

Justin Piszcz wrote:
  

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:

  


Hi forum,

I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 MP4. 
Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am facing is 
when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with error code 
89.

Experts need your help on this.

thanks

+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


  
Error 89 is shared memory problems, read the archive on how to fix that 
for Solaris 10, generally you need to increase your SHMMAX value in the 
kernel (Linux) in Solaris it has been awhile :)


Justin.
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

  



___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

  


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Justin Piszcz
There is your problem right there.

$ cat NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS
32
$ cat SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
262144

For LTO-2 and LTO-3 you should be using the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS as shown 
above, for the number of DATA_BUFFERS, anything above 32 is usually 
overkill/makes no differnece in performance.

Justin.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Friends,

 Fine tunning has been done in /etc/system also but no luck.

 Following is systems setting:

 We have set Net_BUFFER SIZE and
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS= 3072

 Following is the kernel parameter of Solaris 10 OS
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prtctl $$
 -bash: prtctl: command not found
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prctl $$
 process: 15640: -bash
 NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
 process.max-port-events
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-msg-messages
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 4.29G max deny -
 process.max-msg-qbytes
 privileged 64.0KB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-sem-ops
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-sem-nsems
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 32.8K max deny -
 process.max-address-space
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-descriptor
 basic 256 - deny 15640
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-core-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-stack-size
 basic 8.00MB - deny 15640
 privileged 8.00EB - deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-data-size
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny,signal=XFSZ -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-cpu-time
 privileged 18.4Es inf signal=XCPU -
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-cpu-time
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-contracts
 privileged 10.0K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-device-locked-memory
 privileged 3.92GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-port-ids
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 65.5K max deny -
 project.max-shm-memory
 privileged 48.0GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-shm-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-msg-ids
 privileged 256 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-sem-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-crypto-memory
 privileged 15.7GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-tasks
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -
 zone.max-swap
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-sem-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-msg-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 zone.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Jon Bousselot
I'll concur with Justin.  262144 SIZE is a good performer, and 32 NUMBER is a 
sweet spot for LTO-4.  If you have the ram and lots of inbound connectivity, 
you can go to 64 buffers, and it seems to work well.

With 131072 SIZE  and 3072 NUMBER, if you have 1 drive and multiplexing set to 
1, that tries to allocate a 400MB segment of memory.  Add in number of drives 
and multiplexing, I'm not surprised it cannot allocate memory.

The formula from the docs is  (SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS * NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS * 
Num_Drives * MPX_Factor)

-Jon


- Original Message 
From: Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NBU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

There is your problem right there.

$ cat NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS
32
$ cat SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
262144

For LTO-2 and LTO-3 you should be using the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS as shown 
above, for the number of DATA_BUFFERS, anything above 32 is usually 
overkill/makes no differnece in performance.

Justin.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Friends,

 Fine tunning has been done in /etc/system also but no luck.

 Following is systems setting:

 We have set Net_BUFFER SIZE and
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS= 3072

 Following is the kernel parameter of Solaris 10 OS
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prtctl $$
 -bash: prtctl: command not found
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prctl $$
 process: 15640: -bash
 NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
 process.max-port-events
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-msg-messages
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 4.29G max deny -
 process.max-msg-qbytes
 privileged 64.0KB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-sem-ops
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-sem-nsems
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 32.8K max deny -
 process.max-address-space
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-descriptor
 basic 256 - deny 15640
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-core-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-stack-size
 basic 8.00MB - deny 15640
 privileged 8.00EB - deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-data-size
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny,signal=XFSZ -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-cpu-time
 privileged 18.4Es inf signal=XCPU -
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-cpu-time
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-contracts
 privileged 10.0K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-device-locked-memory
 privileged 3.92GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-port-ids
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 65.5K max deny -
 project.max-shm-memory
 privileged 48.0GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-shm-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-msg-ids
 privileged 256 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-sem-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-crypto-memory
 privileged 15.7GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-tasks
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -
 zone.max-swap
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-sem-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-msg-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 zone.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Spearman, David
I will throw this one out for everyone. In test after test what we found
was 65536 size and 128 num buffers worked best. We are a mixed Win /
RedHat shop (with other stuff thrown in) . Win2k3 master and 2 media
servers to an i2000 with 10 lto4 drives. We make sure the size is set on
all the clients as well. When I say test I mean we used the settings
noted above with the settings mentioned below on regular full backups.
Our settings ran about 15-20% faster than the typical 256/32 or 131/32.

 

David Spearman

County of Henrico  

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon
Bousselot
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:04 AM
To: Justin Piszcz; NBU
Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

 

I'll concur with Justin.  262144 SIZE is a good performer, and 32 NUMBER
is a sweet spot for LTO-4.  If you have the ram and lots of inbound
connectivity, you can go to 64 buffers, and it seems to work well.

With 131072 SIZE  and 3072 NUMBER, if you have 1 drive and multiplexing
set to 1, that tries to allocate a 400MB segment of memory.  Add in
number of drives and multiplexing, I'm not surprised it cannot allocate
memory.

The formula from the docs is  (SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS * NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS *
Num_Drives * MPX_Factor)

-Jon

- Original Message 
From: Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NBU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

There is your problem right there.

$ cat NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS
32
$ cat SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
262144

For LTO-2 and LTO-3 you should be using the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS as shown 
above, for the number of DATA_BUFFERS, anything above 32 is usually 
overkill/makes no differnece in performance.

Justin.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Friends,

 Fine tunning has been done in /etc/system also but no luck.

 Following is systems setting:

 We have set Net_BUFFER SIZE and
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS= 3072

 Following is the kernel parameter of Solaris 10 OS
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prtctl $$
 -bash: prtctl: command not found
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prctl $$
 process: 15640: -bash
 NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
 process.max-port-events
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-msg-messages
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 4.29G max deny -
 process.max-msg-qbytes
 privileged 64.0KB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-sem-ops
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-sem-nsems
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 32.8K max deny -
 process.max-address-space
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-descriptor
 basic 256 - deny 15640
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-core-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-stack-size
 basic 8.00MB - deny 15640
 privileged 8.00EB - deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-data-size
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny,signal=XFSZ -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-cpu-time
 privileged 18.4Es inf signal=XCPU -
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-cpu-time
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-contracts
 privileged 10.0K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-device-locked-memory
 privileged 3.92GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-port-ids
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 65.5K max deny -
 project.max-shm-memory
 privileged 48.0GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-shm-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-msg-ids
 privileged 256 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-sem-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-crypto-memory
 privileged 15.7GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-tasks
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -
 zone.max-swap
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-sem-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-msg-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 zone.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -


+--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

+--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http

Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Justin Piszcz
Hm I will add that to my notes the next time I do some benchmarking, 
thanks.

Justin.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Spearman, David wrote:

 I will throw this one out for everyone. In test after test what we found
 was 65536 size and 128 num buffers worked best. We are a mixed Win /
 RedHat shop (with other stuff thrown in) . Win2k3 master and 2 media
 servers to an i2000 with 10 lto4 drives. We make sure the size is set on
 all the clients as well. When I say test I mean we used the settings
 noted above with the settings mentioned below on regular full backups.
 Our settings ran about 15-20% faster than the typical 256/32 or 131/32.



 David Spearman

 County of Henrico



 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon
 Bousselot
 Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:04 AM
 To: Justin Piszcz; NBU
 Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10



 I'll concur with Justin.  262144 SIZE is a good performer, and 32 NUMBER
 is a sweet spot for LTO-4.  If you have the ram and lots of inbound
 connectivity, you can go to 64 buffers, and it seems to work well.

 With 131072 SIZE  and 3072 NUMBER, if you have 1 drive and multiplexing
 set to 1, that tries to allocate a 400MB segment of memory.  Add in
 number of drives and multiplexing, I'm not surprised it cannot allocate
 memory.

 The formula from the docs is  (SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS * NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS *
 Num_Drives * MPX_Factor)

 -Jon

 - Original Message 
 From: Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: NBU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:11:06 AM
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

 There is your problem right there.

 $ cat NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS
 32
 $ cat SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
 262144

 For LTO-2 and LTO-3 you should be using the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS as shown
 above, for the number of DATA_BUFFERS, anything above 32 is usually
 overkill/makes no differnece in performance.

 Justin.

 On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Friends,

 Fine tunning has been done in /etc/system also but no luck.

 Following is systems setting:

 We have set Net_BUFFER SIZE and
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS = 131072
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS= 3072

 Following is the kernel parameter of Solaris 10 OS
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prtctl $$
 -bash: prtctl: command not found
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] # prctl $$
 process: 15640: -bash
 NAME PRIVILEGE VALUE FLAG ACTION RECIPIENT
 process.max-port-events
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-msg-messages
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 4.29G max deny -
 process.max-msg-qbytes
 privileged 64.0KB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-sem-ops
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-sem-nsems
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 32.8K max deny -
 process.max-address-space
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-descriptor
 basic 256 - deny 15640
 privileged 65.5K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 process.max-core-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-stack-size
 basic 8.00MB - deny 15640
 privileged 8.00EB - deny -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-data-size
 privileged 16.0EB max deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 process.max-file-size
 privileged 8.00EB max deny,signal=XFSZ -
 system 8.00EB max deny -
 process.max-cpu-time
 privileged 18.4Es inf signal=XCPU -
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-cpu-time
 system 18.4Es inf none -
 task.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-contracts
 privileged 10.0K - deny -
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-device-locked-memory
 privileged 3.92GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-port-ids
 privileged 8.19K - deny -
 system 65.5K max deny -
 project.max-shm-memory
 privileged 48.0GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-shm-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-msg-ids
 privileged 256 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-sem-ids
 privileged 512 - deny -
 system 16.8M max deny -
 project.max-crypto-memory
 privileged 15.7GB - deny -
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 project.max-tasks
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 project.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -
 zone.max-swap
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-locked-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-memory
 system 16.0EB max deny -
 zone.max-shm-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-sem-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-msg-ids
 system 16.8M max deny -
 zone.max-lwps
 system 2.15G max deny -
 zone.cpu-shares
 privileged 1 - none -
 system 65.5K max none -


 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Steve Quan
We have Solaris10 master  media servers here without any changes to 
/etc/system but I'm also interested in what others are doing.

/Steve
---
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Dave Markham wrote:

 I'd be interested in this too, as i'd heard you didnt need to bother
 with /etc/system tuning in Solaris 10.

 Cheers

 Justin Piszcz wrote:
 On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Hi forum,

 I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 MP4. 
 Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am facing 
 is when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with 
 error code 89.

 Experts need your help on this.

 thanks

 +--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



 Error 89 is shared memory problems, read the archive on how to fix that
 for Solaris 10, generally you need to increase your SHMMAX value in the
 kernel (Linux) in Solaris it has been awhile :)

 Justin.
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


[Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread NBU

Sorry,

I didn't informed that i am having LTO3 drives. Other media server with Solaris 
9 is having same settings which is giving a better output.

+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10

2008-07-23 Thread Dominik . X . Pietrzykowski
Steve,

You are right.

When you read the latest Symantec and SUN doco on this it tells you that 
all previous /etc/system recommendations are
now obsolete in Solaris 10. 

I believe I have posted this before but to recap, Sol 10 boots with a 1/4 
of physical memory assigned to shared memory.
All previous settings that I've seen do not come close to this on new 
systems. We are now talking GBs instead of MBs of old.
Therefore no one should need to touch this.

But here is a caveat, I have noticed that some systems running Sol 10 can 
experience shared memory like symptoms under
heavy load. But it is not the cause, it just looks like it and the 
following has solved the issue, but alas, it's an /etc/system entry that
SUN have tried to eliminate but is still used in Sol 10.

shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=512

Should be 512 or 1024, depends on how big the system is. I recommend 
reading the SUN doco if you need to play around with it.
But it may fix the issue if you see it. Just like below:

the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing with error code 
89

regards,

Dominik






Steve Quan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
24/07/2008 01:20 AM

To
Dave Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject
Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared memory issue with Solaris 10






We have Solaris10 master  media servers here without any changes to 
/etc/system but I'm also interested in what others are doing.

/Steve
---
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Dave Markham wrote:

 I'd be interested in this too, as i'd heard you didnt need to bother
 with /etc/system tuning in Solaris 10.

 Cheers

 Justin Piszcz wrote:
 On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, NBU wrote:


 Hi forum,

 I have a Master and 3  media server on solaris 9 having Netbackup 6.0 
MP4. Recently added new media server with solaris 10. Problem which i am 
facing is when the load increases (Schedule starts) backup start failing 
with error code 89.

 Experts need your help on this.

 thanks

 
+--
 |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
 |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
+--


 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



 Error 89 is shared memory problems, read the archive on how to fix that
 for Solaris 10, generally you need to increase your SHMMAX value in the
 kernel (Linux) in Solaris it has been awhile :)

 Justin.
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



National Australia Bank Ltd - ABN 12 004 044 937
This email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately notify us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or by replying to
the sender, and then destroy all copies of this email. Except where this email
indicates otherwise, views expressed in this email are those of the sender and 
not
of National Australia Bank Ltd. Advice in this email does not take account of 
your
objectives, financial situation, or needs. It is important for you to consider 
these
matters and, if the e-mail refers to a product(s), you should read the relevant
Product Disclosure Statement(s)/other disclosure document(s) before making any
decisions. If you do not want email marketing from us in future, forward this 
email
with unsubscribe in the subject line to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to
stop marketing emails from this sender. National Australia Bank Ltd does not
represent that this email is free of errors, viruses or interference.

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu