CASTalk.com

ÀÌ¹ÎÈ¯ · Guest

Hi there,

I'm using NT Backup which came with Storage Server 2003 utility built-in.

We're facing extremely difficulties due to backup time. We have
approximately 50 GB of data and takes more then 12 hours per day to backup

even if we do differential backup rather then full-backup. still gets long
time to handle this scheduled jobs.

are there any solution or reduce time period and gets better performance to
backup files?

We're trying to get NT backup utility to do jobs since we changed the NAS
solution from Linux based to Windows based server.

previously, Linux based servers done backups as well. since after changing
to Windows storage server it's causing problems at all.

veritas, CA, Emc, is not our choice since cost expensive for our budget.

any possibility to make faster time for differential backup only will
appreciate it

Pat [MSFT] · Guest

Backup times are a function of file count, overall data size, fragmentation,
and IO Subsystem. 12 hours for 50GB sounds like something is not working
correctly. Unless the 50GB is made up of millions of very small files.

To help much, we need a bit more info. How many files are in that 50GB
(thousands, millions)? What is the drive subsystem (SATA, RAID)? Have you
watched the CPU during the backup, and is it abnormal (it should be
relatively low, if it is >75% that is indicative of a problem)? Are you
backing up to a file or to tape?

Pat

"ÀÌ¹ÎÈ¯" <minlee@cdnetworks.co.kr> wrote in message
news:%23gr8SvKlEHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

ÀÌ¹ÎÈ¯ · Guest

HI there

The NT Backup utility is disaster for time duration. I'm sorry but, the
total amount of size was more then 500 GB and so many .doc , .job .xls files
with millions files. I had difficulty to wait when clicking the directory
properties and wait until it counts files and size

The hardware is like dual Xeon 2.4 CPU with 2 GB DDR memory of DELL PV 775N
(Windows Storage Server 2003) equipment with external DELL PV 220S storage
box, 146 GB SCSI disk with Raid5 configuration. total 146GB * 28 Disk all
with same volume container of RAID 5

It's terrible to wait while NT backup is running. these days seems taking
about 1 day (24hours) by now

Any suggestion to make faster while we run NT Backup program?

"Pat [MSFT]" <patfilot@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Oh0LymPlEHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Joseph J. Hand · Guest

Sounds like backing up to disk is not too much of an option, due to the
sheer size... perhaps split the 500GB into more, smaller volumes, and back
those up at different times... splitting it will also make recovery times
dramaticlly shorter.

Many third parties offer the ability to do a raw backup of the disk, which
is much faster, but only a few can restore at a granular level from those
raw backups.

--
Joseph Hand
VERITAS Software Corporation
joseph.hand@veritas.com
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP ONLY

"ÀÌ¹ÎÈ¯" <minlee@cdnetworks.co.kr> wrote in message
news:uZjAl9vlEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Pat [MSFT] · Guest

The issue is that the files are backed up sequentially. So, for every
action, you have to multiply it by the file count. For example, assuming
that you have absolutely no fragmentation in the volume, the disk seek time
for 1 million files is ~3000 seconds - 50 minutes - (assuming a disk
subsystem that can maintain 3ms seek average). That is just the time to
find the first byte, no actual data transfer is included there.

When you backup large files (e.g. .dat files for SQL or .edb for exchange),
the main time is spent in data tranfer. In small file size, large file
count scenarios, the time is spent mostly seeking.

The best thing to do would be to go with volume based backup (shadow copy),
then you could back the image off to tape as needed. Clients could
self-restore specific files as needed and you could archive images for
longer term storage.

Alternatively, you could create multiple backup jobs that break the volume
into multiple pieces (i.e. this would increase the level of parallelism in
the system and reduce the effect of overhead in the sequential scenario) and
run multiple instances of NTBackup. This would also allow for a significant
reduction in getting at least some data back online in the event of a
catastrophic failure. Obviously, this would increase the complexity of the
backup management, also you can't backup to the same tape at the same time
from multiple instances.

Pat

"ÀÌ¹ÎÈ¯" <minlee@cdnetworks.co.kr> wrote in message
news:uZjAl9vlEHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

	CASTalk.com Forum Index -> Storage System	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1