Good Day Mike,
Is the backup with the errors a full backup?
If it happens with full backups you might first look at the client os system.
Are you using 32 or 64 bit os. I can not remember if solaris 10 still support
32 bit.
If 32 bit you might have some addressing issues.
Check the os logs
System call failed usually suggests unknown hostname. Did you test the basic
network connectivity between master/media server and client. Try following
commands
On master/media server
-- bptestbpcd -client clietname -verbose
-- telnet clientname bpcd
-- bpclntcmd -ip clientip
-- bpclntcmd -hn
...@mylan.com, veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
cc
Subject
Re: [Veritas-bu] Performance tuning Windows 2008 client
Are you hitting multiple VMs simultaneously on the same datastore? Is the
speed better when you only run one backup at a time? We’ve identified
serious performance issues related
(Knowing nothing about Win2008R2 and little about VMs, ...)
I'd want to get together with my network folks to see if I'm getting dropped
packets during the test.
Misconfigured connections and overloaded routers can kill performance.
I'd also look at windows performance stats ... perhaps memory
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:28 AM, jack.fores...@mylan.com wrote:
We're observing some significant performance issues with some of our
Windows 2008 SP2 clients.
Backing up to a DD880 VTL, one client in particular is running at just over
300KB/sec. Others are running 2-3MB/sec.
The clients in
...@ewilts.org
Sent by: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
07/07/2010 10:50 AM
To
jack.fores...@mylan.com
cc
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject
Re: [Veritas-bu] Performance tuning Windows 2008 client
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:28 AM, jack.fores...@mylan.com wrote:
We're observing
, 2010 1:56 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Performance tuning Windows 2008 client
Do these contain lots and lots of little files? If so, have you
considered FlashBackup?
The backup is 19GB over 35,000 files. That's pretty typical. It took
17 hours
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:49:04 -0700
From: Kevin Corley kevin.cor...@apollogrp.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] performance on windows cluster
To: VERITAS-BU@MAILMAN.ENG.AUBURN.EDU
VERITAS-BU@MAILMAN.ENG.AUBURN.EDU
Message-ID:
Hi Kevin
I do not want to be a downer on Clustering, as I quite like MS
Clustering, but the reason why I would be looking at Clustering the
Master is due to High Availability of that application.
However, please bear in mind that if you have 1000+ jobs running while
the Master Cluster fails
Well NDMP logging is done differently, so you may want to search for the
technotes for that - it will likely give more information. However, I've
heard that it can produce an enormous amount of logging.
I've not tried remote NDMP any time recently, so I can't claim real-world
experience. I
william.d.br...@gsk.com wrote:
Well NDMP logging is done differently, so you may want to search for the
technotes for that - it will likely give more information. However, I've
heard that it can produce an enormous amount of logging.
I know. I've already filled up the file system once
Just a note that you shouldn't use the Solaris kernel settings for Sol 10
because the default value is much bigger.
Eg shmsys:shminfo_shmmax
On Solaris 10 it will default to 1/4 of physical memory which is pretty good
on all the new boxes running Sol 10.
-Original Message-
From:
Thanks Len
No restores were running, backups only.
Mark
From: Len Boyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 04 July 2007 16:30
To: Goodchild,MA,Mark,XJJ33C C; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Performance issues with user initiated
then those used by the master scheduled backup.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Len Boyle; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Performance issues with user initiated backups.
Thanks Len
No restores were
Hello Jonathan
I am very much behind with all my emails, but just wanted to add to this
Sorry if its late
Point 1 - Spec sounds ok - Drives do not. If performance is terrible on the
drives, change them. Better still, can you change the H/W of your Server?
The response from Dell tells me
I'm finally getting around to performance tuning the new
hardware and my hair is now officially on fire. To say
the storage is slow, is like saying the south pole is
chilly. Performance is TERRIBLE. Not just in Netbackup,
but generally speaking I can't copy files to these
volumes at
On 1/12/2007 3:54 PM, Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) wrote:
I'm finally getting around to performance tuning the new hardware and my
hair is now officially on fire. To say the storage is slow, is like
saying the south pole is chilly. Performance is TERRIBLE. Not just in
Netbackup, but
Hello,
I have been tasked with evaluating the performance of 5.1 environment
running on Solaris and making recommendations for improvement. Can
anyone point me to some good scripts that can be used to pull drive
utilization information, backup window utilization, client performance,
etc?
Thanks
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Austin Murphy
Sent: February 7, 2006 2:58 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] performance?
It looks like you are maxing out your Gigabit ethernet cards.
My performance measurements of Gigabit ethernet were at best ~35MB/sec
for one normal
Markham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08 February 2006 11:36
To: Paul Keating
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] performance?
Have you set NET_BUFFER_SZ at all on the clients? It may try and
increase the throughput buffer wise from client end where it was using
@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] performance?
Have you set NET_BUFFER_SZ at all on the clients? It may try and
increase the throughput buffer wise from client end where it was using
standard values before.
Dave
Paul Keating wrote:
I can add more GigE cards.matter of fact the box
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] performance?
Have you set NET_BUFFER_SZ at all on the clients? It may try and
increase the throughput buffer wise from client end where it
was using
standard values before.
Dave
Unless I am missing something here IPMP only increases throughput on the
outbound side of the server. Media servers are typically bringing data in from
the network.
Without further fiddling, that is correct. If you could get some
clients to use one IP address for the media server and other
It looks like you are maxing out your Gigabit ethernet cards.
My performance measurements of Gigabit ethernet were at best ~35MB/sec
for one normal gigabit link. The only numbers I saw on the internet
that were substantially higher used jumbo frames.
I'm using an E450 (4x 296MHz) with a 4-port
this year anyway, so
Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Austin Murphy
Sent: February 7, 2006 2:58 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] performance?
It looks like you are maxing out your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/23/2006
07:18:06 AM:
Netbackup version 5.1.4. Solaris 9 master/media server.
Our windows file server (win2003) backup has
just started taking a
very long time for the shadow copy components. Normally a 10
minute
backup is now taking over 5 hours. The backup of
26 matches
Mail list logo
