RE: Backup and Compare Performance ... lots of small files

2000-05-18 Thread Rob Davies
Title: RE: Backup and Compare Performance ... lots of small files





I'm not familiar with this particular backup device but it sounds like the read head is out of alignment with the write head. To eliminate other causes we would

1. clean the heads
2. run a short test backup/ compare/ restore on a fresh tape.
If the problem remains, get the heads checked.


Rob Davies
TSG-NDSA
(Technical Services Group - Non Datacentre Server Admin)
CWO





-Original Message-
From: Church Initiative WebMaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 19 May 2000 5:19
To: retro-talk
Subject: Re: Backup and Compare Performance ... lots of small files



I am having a related problem. Up until two days ago everything was working
fine, but since then a backup has yet to complete. Last night, the backup
computer did not even finish backing up itself. Our back up server is a G3
400 Mhz with 192 MB of RAM with 23 GB of Hard drive space and our backup
device is a VXA 66 GB tape drive. After running for 13.5 hours, the backup
had managed to backup 12.4 GB but only compare 10.5 GB. The MB/min for the
copy was 130.4 and for some unknown reason plummeted to only 15 MB/min for
the compare! Remember this is NOT over a network, but on the local machine.
There are only 153 files that make up the 12.4 GB so why the slowdown



Stiles Watson
Director of Information Services
The Church Initiative, Inc.
www.divorcecare.org
www.griefshare.org


- Original Message -
From: John F. Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: retro-talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Backup and Compare Performance ... lots of small files



 
 Anyone had similar experiences where the hierarchy of the data has a
 dramatic effect on performance?
 

 I find that Retrospect on a 10base T network, Backup Server on a
 Pentium II 233, Client on a PowerBook G3 266, (or even better, on
 Virtual PC on a PB G3 266) can achieve 60MB/min transfer rates (=
 1MB/sec = pretty much the maximum transfer rate on 10BaseT) when
 transferring large files, but performance drops away to around
 12MB/min when reading lots of small files - I am surprised by this
 large drop in performance too!

 John



 --
 --
 To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Archives: http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/
 Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




_
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html



--
--
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Re: Backup and Compare Performance ... lots of small files

2000-05-17 Thread John F. Lambert


Anyone had similar experiences where the hierarchy of the data has a
dramatic effect on performance?


I find that Retrospect on a 10base T network, Backup Server on a 
Pentium II 233, Client on a PowerBook G3 266, (or even better, on 
Virtual PC on a PB G3 266)  can achieve 60MB/min transfer rates (= 
1MB/sec = pretty much the maximum transfer rate on 10BaseT) when 
transferring large files, but performance drops away to around 
12MB/min when reading lots of small files - I am surprised by this 
large drop in performance too!

John



--
--
To subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/
Problems?:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]