Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence. - Networking

This is a discussion on Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence. - Networking ; Hi, I am running a CentOS 4 box with 4 terabytes of data on it. It houses most of my users' data, so it is constantly being used. I'm running the Networker 7.3.2 client on the box, as well. I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence.

  1. Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence.

    Hi,

    I am running a CentOS 4 box with 4 terabytes of data on it. It houses
    most of my users' data, so it is constantly being used.


    I'm running the Networker 7.3.2 client on the box, as well. I have
    established a seperate backup network successfully - all data is
    backed up over this secondary network, and not over the production
    network. The secondary, like the primary, is all GigE, so we're as
    fast as we can go, there.


    Even though I've made this change, machine response is VERY slow
    during a backup. The CPU(s) get thrashed, since it has a lot of
    calculations to do in order to perform a backup.

    Sadly, there are no throttling options in Legato Networker, since its
    really designed to do a backup as quick as possible. What I'd like to
    be able to do is a backup of the system, without (significantly)
    impacting server performance.

    Now granted, I try to run backups during non business hours, but
    sometimes thats imposssible. I tried to /bin/nice the save processes
    on the file server, but this did not have a significant change.

    Is it possible to improve the performance (without completely swapping
    out the back plane?) Are there any /proc settings that might help?
    Would bumping up the number of NFS processes help? How about the wsize/
    rsize of the exported directories? Anything else anyone can think of?

    If anyone has any thoughts, I would really appreciate it. I'm at a
    loss, and I don't even see the advantage to a backup network now,
    since my network is STILL impacted when a backup is running.



    - Thanks,


    Todd


  2. Re: Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence.


    "Todd" wrote in message
    news:1170282180.527632.132240@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am running a CentOS 4 box with 4 terabytes of data on it. It houses
    > most of my users' data, so it is constantly being used.
    >
    >
    > I'm running the Networker 7.3.2 client on the box, as well. I have
    > established a seperate backup network successfully - all data is
    > backed up over this secondary network, and not over the production
    > network. The secondary, like the primary, is all GigE, so we're as
    > fast as we can go, there.
    >
    >
    > Even though I've made this change, machine response is VERY slow
    > during a backup. The CPU(s) get thrashed, since it has a lot of
    > calculations to do in order to perform a backup.
    >


    GigE is good, but GigE w/ TOE is better. This will offload the processor.
    If the backup application is the culprit, there's nothing you
    can do except insure that your system has adequate memory. Monitor the page
    faults if this is possible. If it's excessive, more RAM may resolve the
    sluggishness.

    Da Moojit

    > Sadly, there are no throttling options in Legato Networker, since its
    > really designed to do a backup as quick as possible. What I'd like to
    > be able to do is a backup of the system, without (significantly)
    > impacting server performance.
    >
    > Now granted, I try to run backups during non business hours, but
    > sometimes thats imposssible. I tried to /bin/nice the save processes
    > on the file server, but this did not have a significant change.
    >
    > Is it possible to improve the performance (without completely swapping
    > out the back plane?) Are there any /proc settings that might help?
    > Would bumping up the number of NFS processes help? How about the wsize/
    > rsize of the exported directories? Anything else anyone can think of?
    >
    > If anyone has any thoughts, I would really appreciate it. I'm at a
    > loss, and I don't even see the advantage to a backup network now,
    > since my network is STILL impacted when a backup is running.
    >
    >
    >
    > - Thanks,
    >
    >
    > Todd
    >




  3. Re: Fine Tuning Linux for backup/production coexistence.

    In article <45c4e024$0$5236$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
    Moojit wrote:
    >
    >"Todd" wrote in message
    >news:1170282180.527632.132240@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am running a CentOS 4 box with 4 terabytes of data on it. It houses
    >> most of my users' data, so it is constantly being used.
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm running the Networker 7.3.2 client on the box, as well. I have
    >> established a seperate backup network successfully - all data is
    >> backed up over this secondary network, and not over the production
    >> network. The secondary, like the primary, is all GigE, so we're as
    >> fast as we can go, there.
    >>
    >>
    >> Even though I've made this change, machine response is VERY slow
    >> during a backup. The CPU(s) get thrashed, since it has a lot of
    >> calculations to do in order to perform a backup.
    >>

    >
    >GigE is good, but GigE w/ TOE is better. This will offload the processor.


    Do you have any rational reason to believe that a gigabit of TCP
    throughput will saturate a modern processor?

    The dirty little secret about "TOE" is that it often _slows things down_.

    --
    Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
    "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
    at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

+ Reply to Thread