Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help
New in the Rewards Catalog: Vouchers for "Symantec Technical Specialist" and "Symantec Certified Specialist" exams.

NetBackup Performance Tuning

Updated: 21 May 2009 | 4 comments
DBLittle's picture
0 0 Votes
Login to vote

So you are barely meeting your backup window and now you have decided to replace your old LTO2 drives with faster LTO3 drives, or wait, LTO4 is available.  Yeah, let’s go with those.  After replacing your 8 old drives with 8 new ones you are ready to relax and watch things run.  Why is the phone ringing at 2 AM?  Why are backups not finishing within the backup window?  Why are things worse? Too many people assume the tape drive is automatically the bottleneck in their backup environment without making sure that is the case.  Too many people assume there are only two places to worry about performance, the tape drive and the media server bptm buffers.  While these are two places to be concerned about they are not by any way, shape or form the only two places.  In fact in today’s backup infrastructure they aren’t necessarily the first place to look.   If you will bear with me I would like to share in a couple of blogs some thoughts about how to approach the performance question with NetBackup in today’s environment.  It isn’t rocket science but sometimes we forget the obvious so I am going to share my ideas.  This still seems to be a popular topic based on the interest in the NetBackup performance tuning session at Vision each year.   More later. Please share any questions or comments with me.

Comments

SANSPESIALISTEN's picture
26
Nov
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

My bottleneck was tape...
I had to take use the Staging option in the production as well, and during the day all Staging went to compressed tapes, using 2 x LTO3.
(The Staging disk is FC connected with a media server on the SAN)

We are looking at Puredisk, and I will be testing it in jan09..
Hoping for a multiple stream configuraton on both the Puredisk and LTO3
The other option that I will use; is VMware VMFS snap LUNs on the SAN Ctrl`s. That snap will be a puredisk og I will replicate them of site to a low enda storage and them run puredisk on it as well

Rogerreefer's picture
26
Nov
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Hi there
I am having performance problems since i upgraded BEXEC 9.1 TO BEXEC 12.5 using agents rather than single installations of BEXEC.
We are over running the backup windows for each server, in fact, the time it takes to backup a server has doubled, we have run every speed test on the network you can think of and no bottlenecks found.
Basically it worked ok with 9.1 but is a lot slower with 12.5+agents
We can't find a solution, checked all the forums for answers to no avail.
Symantec support just keep blaming my network, but i know there is no problems, where do i go from here ??.

Rog

DBLittle's picture
27
Nov
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

DBLittle's picture
27
Nov
2008
0 Votes 0
Login to vote

Hi, I am not very knowledgeable about the interworkings of BE but passed your comments along to my counterpart on the BE team.