Video Screencast Help

Direct connection between File server and Backup, increased backup rate?

Created: 14 Mar 2011 | 1 comment

I have a nightly backup of our File server that takes between 6 to 9 hours to run.  I have been unable to determin why the job rate varies nightly from 300mb to almost 1GB.  I am backing up about 300GB of data.  These are full backups that are run, I only run as full as not to have to run two restores jobs, if I ever need to restore a file (full then Diferentail.  I am currently running BE 12.5 with an Arcvalut 24 loader with scsi connections.

If I was to add a second network card to my BE Server and File server and then directly connect the two would this speed up the backup process.  If it would, then going with a Fiber connection between the two be even faster (or am I just spining my wheels)?

Thanks,

Comments 1 CommentJump to latest comment

teiva-boy's picture

Do not put too much faith into BackupExec's claimed job rate.  It's based on a simple calculation of data over time.  A longer window, means a slower rate.  A job that stalls for 24hrs would bring the rate down to 1Mb/min or less even with no data even flowing as the value is averaged out over the entire window.

Now back to your question, I do not believe at all unless you were on 10Mb links that moving to a dedicated link would make a difference at all.

What could make a difference is that the source data has a mix of small and large files.  So that can affect rates.  You could have a highly fragmented volume, so some maintenance is in order?  And AV engines can bring down rates too (it's ideal if you can exclude all Backupexec installation directories and running processes)

Start there, and report your results.

There is an online portal, save yourself the long hold times. Create ticket online, then call in with ticket # in hand :-) http://mysupport.symantec.com "We backup data to restore, we don't backup data just to back it up."