Does this make sense to anyone? I have all of my remote jobs running on a dedicated, 1gb backbone. I am using a Dell Powervault 132. Does the Veritas Remote agent compress the remote jobs better than local disk jobs compression? I can't figure out why the remote jobs are like twice as fast as a local back-up job. I tried updating the tape device drivers to Veritas instead of IBM, but then all back-up jobs failed, so I rolled back. But I'm out of answers since the remote jobs seem to communicate just fine with the PowerVault. The PowerVault is connected via SCSI to a local file server. So when I back-up like 300 GB of data from it, it takes like 8 1/2 hours. Backing up 300 GB of data remotely only takes about 4. Help!!!!
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Veritas 10 is slower on local disk than remote jobs???
- Thread starter jbs45
- Start date
WhoKilledKenny
MIS
It could be the data you are backing up. Some backup apps slowdown when trying to back up large amounts of small files. I have seen this when attempting to back up small .TIFF files.
BuffaloTom
Technical User
I had the same situation two years ago and went round and round with Dell and Veritas 9.1. At the time I was running a Dell server, with an 38160 (?? think thats the number)adaptec card and Dell 132T Powervault. I finally narrowed it down to a compatibility issues between the adaptec card and server , replacing the adaptec card with an older 2960 card. Still running the setup using same server, same 132T and Veritas 10D...it cranks.
TekJunkie01
IS-IT--Management
What comes to my mind is this:
Do the local and remote jobs both consist of the same type of data? Some data types take significantly longer to compress than others. Are you verifying both the local and remote backup jobs? Finally, when you run a backup locally, you are creating much more contention for resources that when using a remote agent for backup. Perhaps this contention, increased IO for example, is causing a local bottleneck? Try to perfmon it and see what samples are out of whack.
Do the local and remote jobs both consist of the same type of data? Some data types take significantly longer to compress than others. Are you verifying both the local and remote backup jobs? Finally, when you run a backup locally, you are creating much more contention for resources that when using a remote agent for backup. Perhaps this contention, increased IO for example, is causing a local bottleneck? Try to perfmon it and see what samples are out of whack.
- Thread starter
- #5
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
