Video Screencast Help

NBU advance disk pool and SLP with one large disk or multiple small disks performance consideraton

Created: 27 Sep 2012 | 7 comments
Mr.Khan's picture

 

Dear Symantec Community,

I am currently designing a solution , I need your suggestions on that. we are considering SLP with Advance Disk Pool, Want to clear a performance issue if we have one large disk per media server formated with GPT in disk pool vs small disks say 2TB each in advance Disk Pool formated with MBR or GPT) in advance Disk Pool. 2ndly what will be best, formated with GPT or MBR with advance disk.

 

Regards

Khan

 

Comments 7 CommentsJump to latest comment

Nicolai's picture

The partition tabel has no impact on perforamnce.

Personally I would go for one big disk. I really hate to micro manage many small advanced disk pool. But I recognise there may be good reasons to do that.

 

 

Assumption is the mother of all mess ups.

If this post answered your'e qustion -  Please mark as a soloution.

Mr.Khan's picture

Thanks for your reply Nicolai,

But if we have one big disk  say 15 TB ,  and  we have multiple backups running on it simultaniously. The disk can go Larger in files hence contributing to fragmentation & indexing issue and consequent performance loss. The big disk is easy to manage , i would personally love it but need your suggestions any practical examples.

 

Regards

Khan

 

Mr.Khan's picture

in addition to my previous post please also consider SLP so the same disk pool will also using SLP policies and backup will be taken to tape from disk which requires two time speed/time of backups because it will be reading as well as duplicating the jobs.

mph999's picture

I hope your one big disk is actually made up of multiple disks/ spindles striped ... - otherwise you could be looking at unsolvable performance issues.

Martin

 

Regards,  Martin
 
Setting Logs in NetBackup:
http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH75805
 
Nicolai's picture

I use big file system - between 5-15TB. The volumes are made of multiple 2TB LUN. I use VxFS as file system and see 0% fragmentation because Netbackup uses pre-allocation API's in Volume Manager when writing to disks. I allow about 20-25 concurrent backup to one logical disk.

If you are on Windows this is of cause no good for you.

Assumption is the mother of all mess ups.

If this post answered your'e qustion -  Please mark as a soloution.

Tomer Gurantz's picture

You could do the same on Windows in regards to using a large volume made of LUNs (you'd be using the native Windows disk manager instead of Volume Manager, and of course Windows-based file systems instead of VxFS). The differences are there, especially because VxFS is superior in many ways, but it'd effectively be similar. Fortunately Windows also allows for online manual defragmentation and should have decent allocation policies built-in to it, just like VxFS (i.e. better than traditional old-school UNIX file systems, like UFS)

Principal Learning Consultant with Symantec Education Course Development

Tomer Gurantz's picture

In regards to performance, the real issue is how many underlying spindles (separate physical drives) do you have? That determines the performance, assuming you are striping across them, not whether or not it's allocated as one big file system or many small ones. You do need some sort of volume manager to make a volume across the LUNs, but that is mostly available nowadays in Windows and most UNIX/Linux flavors. In fact, having one big one striped across is probably better in distributing the workload... having many small LUNs (each on a separate physical drive) means you'd have to manually distribute the load, which has more room for error.

Principal Learning Consultant with Symantec Education Course Development