Canonball Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Hello, I installed Retrospect 7.6 on a Windows 2003R2 single server with a SAS RAID6. Backup to a LTO-4 SAS connection drive shows a backup speed of 35 MByte/s. Compared with ARCserve installed before it is half of the speed (65-70 MByte/s). Do you have any ideas? Thanks, Canonball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Not all SAS devices are supported. Is yours on the list? http://www.emcinsignia.com/supportupdates/technical/retrospect/search/?inputSearchManufacturer=&inputSearchInterface=SAS&inputSearchMedia=&inputSearchQualified=all&submit=Search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canonball Posted September 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 Yes, it is: IBM 3580 Ultrium 4 Tape Drive Manufacturer: IBM Interface: SAS Media: LTO Windows Support Status Qualified Minimum Version Required 7.5 Minimum Driver Update 7.5.11.100 Advanced Driver Kit (Retro 4.x only) N/A Minimum Firmware Version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 26, 2008 Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 I know this works for SCSI. You can try it: Also, here's registry keys that users can try to adjust to make their SCSI or FC cards go faster: ----------------------------------------------------------------- HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE HARDWARE DEVICEMAP SCSI SCSIPORT (Driver --> i.e. Symmpi) SYSTEM CURRENTCONTROLSET SERVICES (Driver) PARAMETERS DEVICE -> MaximumSGList The MaximumSGList value is the one you want to set: (formula: if value 65, 65 - 1 = 64 x 4K = 256K Transfers) 65 = 256K transfers 33 = 128K transfers 17 = 64k transfers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted September 27, 2008 Report Share Posted September 27, 2008 (edited) Are you using Retrospect's built-in speed indicators? If so, I have seen this show completely incorrect results. For example, when transferring data from hard drive to tape, I've seen Retrospect tell me that it's copying data at 8mb/minute, but it finished several gigabytes of data in just a few minutes. I've also seen it say that it's copying data over at 113,000 mb/minute, but the time to copy the data didn't match up with this superhuman speed. Is is possible that your data is getting transferred at the correct speed with Retrospect simply underreporting the speed? Edited September 27, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted September 28, 2008 Report Share Posted September 28, 2008 I had another thought on this. Are you using Retrospect's built-in software compression, or the drive's native compression? If you're using the former, than performance is going to be much slower than if using the later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canonball Posted September 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2008 It is not the speed shown in the program. Comparing the backup time Retrospect is much slower for the quantity of data. I will try it again with/ without software compression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted September 29, 2008 Report Share Posted September 29, 2008 If you're using the drive's native compression, you don't need to use the software compression. The only reason to use software compression (in my experience, anyway) is if: 1. You are encrypting the data going to the tapes. or 2. You are backing up to a device that does not support hardware compression (e.g., a hard drive). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted September 29, 2008 Report Share Posted September 29, 2008 software compression is ignored if hardware compression is turned on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted October 1, 2008 Report Share Posted October 1, 2008 How did this go for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canonball Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2008 I will try this at the weekend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canonball Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Hi, after a second try with all options I reinstalled CA Arcserve 11.5 SP3 and had 75 MByte/sec overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emulator Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Robin... Do you have any ideas on why this is slower than Arcserv? I haven't ever tried the CA product. If retro is slower, is there anything in the development that increases speed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) I have seen LTO with Retrospect get 2 or 3 GB per minute. Every environment is going to be different. Edited October 13, 2008 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.