Guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Hi I am currently testing "Multiserver Edition" in our company. I want to replace the backup program we use right now. I see some benefits so far but there is one important problem: The backup program we currently use has a throughput of about 700 Mb/min (compression enabled), which is network speed. Danz Retrospect only has about 170 Mb/min (compression enabled too, according to danz log) on the same Server. This speed makes Danz Retrospect useless for us, because of our big amount of data. Is there a way to speed up throughput? some details: Danz Multi Server "test-Version" 6.5.350 Host: W2k Server Athlon 1400 256 MB ddr 3Com 3c905 10/100 backup to file from another Windows 2000 Server Sorry for my broken english :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJones Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 What are you using now? My Dantz Multi Server is giving me troubles and crashing my system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 I am using BackupExec 9.1 now, but it keeps crashing MY servers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktaylor Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 i posted a message here about a year ago about the poor speed of backups, my feeling is retrospect is not really up to the job doing larger backups. i've got multi server 6.5.350 with all the latest updates on and i'm only getting a through put of 100mb/per min. this is on a pentium 4 3ghz, 512mb ram, 1gb network, to an ultrium 230 autoloader. interestingly enough retrospect is not touching the cpu or the network so i'm wondering where the bottle neck is. i've just recently put two 250gb sata disks in the machine and done some tests backing up to these instead of the tape drive. this was using backup to file, i saw quite an increase in performance up to 250mb/per min. unfortunately i found when the single backup file grew to being 120gb (i'm backing up 60 clients) it became unstable, very slow and unusable. i'm now running some tests with backup to disk, but the speeds for these backups have slipped down to 90mb/per min slower than to tape. the whole backup process to do a full on 130gb is taking 16-20 hours to do the same for our unix system using legato networker takes 6 hours. i would transfer the lot to legato tomorrow, but it's would cost me £3k a year compared with dantz which is as cheap as chips. keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennart_T Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Quote: i'm backing up 60 clients ... i would transfer the lot to legato tomorrow Legato is a nightmare if you have more than 5-10 clients. It's designed for large data volumes from a few computers. Speed is Retrospect's main problem, but I hear they are working on streaming multiple clients to the same tape station at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketrose Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 One thing you can do with Multiserver, for an extra $700 for the Advanced add-in, is use multiple tape drives and multiple storage sets for simultaneous backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natew Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Hi Retrospect goes as fast as the hardware/environment will allow. There may be other factors slowing things down. Have you tried installing ASPI? Some people find that to be much faster. Thanks Nate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.