| Arno Wagner 2007-03-30, 7:14 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage markm75 <markm75c@msn.com> wrote:
> As a side note: Much to my disappointment I found bad results last
> nite in my over the network Acronis of one of my servers to my current
> backup server (test server that i was doing the hdd to hdd testing on,
> where I was getting 300gb partition done in 4hrs with acronis on the
> same machine)..
> My results going across gigabit ethernet using acronis, set to normal
> compression (not high or max, wondering if increase compression should
> speed things along)...
> Size of partiton: 336GB or 334064MB (RAID5, sata 150)
> Time to complete: 9hrs, 1min (541 mins or 32460 seconds)
> Compressed size at normal: 247 GB
> Destination: Single Volume, SATAII (seq writes 55 MB/s bypassing
> windows cache, 38 MB/s not bypassing windows cache).. Yes i dont know
> why when testing with sisandra and not bypassing the cache the numbers
> are LESS but they are
> 10.29 MB/sec actual rate
> *Using qcheck going from the source to the destination I get 450 Mbps
> to 666 Mbps (use 450 as the avg = 56.25 MB/s
> So the max rate I could possibily expect would be 56 MB/s if the
> writes on the destination occurred at this rate.
> Any thoughts on how to get this network backup up in value?
> Thoughts on running simultaneous jobs across the network if I enable
> both Gigabit ports on the destination server (how would I do this, ie:
> do I have to do trunking or just set another ip on the other port and
> direct the backup to that ip\e$ ) IE: If i end up using Acronis
> there is no way to do a job that will sequentially do each server, I'd
> have to either know when the job stops to start up the next server to
> be backed up on each weeks full.. so the only way I figured around
> this was to do 2 servers at once on dual gigabit?
> I have intel pro cards in alot of the servers, but I dont see any way
> to set jumbo frames either.
> My switch is a Dlink DGS-1248T (gigabit, managed).
> The controller card on the source server in this case is 3ware
> escalade 8506-4lp PCI-x sataI while the one on the destination is
> ARC-1120 pci-x 8 port sataII.. I'm assuming these are both very good
> cards.. I dont know how they compare to the Raidcore though?
> Still alittle confused on the SATA vs SCSI argument too.. the basic
> rule should be that if alot of simultaneous hits are going on.. SCSI
> is better.. but why? Still unsure if each drive on a scsi chain has
> divided bandwith of say 320 mB/s.. same for SATA, each cable divided
> from the 3 Gbps rate or each has 3 Gb/s.. if both devices have
> dedicated bandwidth for any given drive, then what makes SCSI superior
> to SATA...
Are you sure your bottleneck is not the compression? Retry
this without compression for a reference value.
Arno
|