brentsallee Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 I am receiving extremely slow performance in the backup details under Retrospect 8. I am hoping it is a setting or configuration I have set that I can change to improve the performance speed. Here are some details of my configuration. Mac OS X Server (10.5.7) 2 X 2 Ghz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 2 GB DDR2 RAM Retrospect v. 8.0.736.1 Clients: Mac OS X (10.5.7) and Windows XP (SP3) The Server has three internal SATA drives installed. The first drive is the system drive, the second is used for file sharing (shared files are save on it), the third drive is being used for Time Machine and Retrospect backup. Time Machine backs up the second drive every hour to the third drive. I have Proactive Backup active in a script that backs up all of the client machines on the LAN (all on 100 or 1000 gigabit ethernet). Retrospect is set to only backup client machines on the LAN. When I was running Retrospect 6 w/ a similar script I was backing up at 1200 MB/min average. Under Retrospect 8 I am performing at 40-55 MB/m. Here are some more details of the script. Type: Proactive Backup Rule: Back up everything but Music Files and Cache files Options: Thorough verification on Data compression off Matching: checked - Match source files against the Media Set checked - Don't add duplicate files to the Media Set Obviously the backups are taking FOREVER and sometimes break. I would like to increase the speed of the backups. Hopefully this will be enough info for your help and suggestions. Thanks, Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 - What Type of Media Set is being used? the third drive is being used for Time Machine and Retrospect backup. Are your TimeMachine backups on the same logical volume as the media you're using for your Retrospect backup (whatever Type of Media Set you are using)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) I've got the same problem. Using a mac mini on the network to run Retrospect 8 / Mac NAS drives for the backup sets are attached to the network (WD) Clients are all Macs ONE machine of over 20 has been backing up since Friday a.m., This isn't making it. We could run the entire network overnight before (to tape). An entire start from scratch backup for this group of machines would finish in under 36 hours. Have a had a series of backups fail, once folks are back to work their machines will be busy and it's going to cause the b/u to stop. Two days to not complete the backup of 23GB of data????? What can improve it? Would having the NAS attached directly to the mini rather than the network help? All devices are on a single Cisco Catalyst switch. Edited June 28, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 If the backup of other clients is an ok speed but the backup of the "one machine" is really slow, then something on that machine is preventing reasonable data transfer from that computer. Backup to NAS will never be as fast as a directly attached USB/FW disk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) backup of ALL computers is slow. Now the console won't find any of the sources to backup. Though the mini (with the engine and console) can ping them just fine. Edited June 28, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 How many MB/Min is being reported? What is the speed when backing up a local disk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) under 16mb for the one machine it finds and took two days to backup. Now i can't get it to find any sources/clients when running the final compare it was 46.o but when done, the final speed was about 16mb All indicate source unavailable. Tried to go back and run from v6 and get notice that names are in use/duplicate. Did a unistall / reinstall to roll client back and I can't get it happy with that one either. Have fully restarted the mini/console/engine computer and the network backbone. 8 still sees no sources. though the mini can ping htem all Edited June 28, 2009 by Guest addl info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 If version 6 doesn't work then 8 won't either. Version 6 probably has more accurate errors about the problem though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 How can I get 6 it work again? If I go to that now I get error 525 name/login conflict (which is new since we installed v8), On the one machine I did an uninstall / reinstall to roll back the client to 6.1.130 I have gotten back into the old backup. WHAT is the process to go through so I can run v6 again? I do not want to loose/start over on the backups that I have on that drive. So if I go through ALL the sources and do an uninstall of 6.3xxx client and reinstall 6.1.130 WILL I be able to run v6 and at least have some backups going until v8 is improved??? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Looks like if I do a -uninstall of 6.3.xxx, - install 6.1.130 (which is the client we had been using) - activate - forget the client - add the client - add them back to the v6 script that it SHOULD run there again. Headed in that direction until v8 can demonstrate it works. I apparently misunderstood / misunderstand what I had read that BOTH versions could operate side by side. Not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I apparently misunderstood / misunderstand what I had read that BOTH versions could operate side by side. Not the case. They both work on the same computer. The ultimate cause of the problems you are seeing has nothing to do with both copied of Retrospect being on the same computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) The failure for both to coexist and run appears to be the client installed at the source. Client v 6.3.019 isn't recognized by v6 server. With that client installed at the sources v6 gives the error 525 name/login conflict. It only allows one version of the client to be installed on the client computer. The server, yes, both can be on one computer. We happen to have them on different computers right now (as we want to retire the server w/ 6 on it and put 8 on the new one). With the client 6.1.130 installed (after doing a uninstall/reinstall to get it there), Removing / adding at the server in v6 I now can get the scripts to run. what version of the client software needs to be installed at the client / source to have both server 6 and 8 run w/o getting into the name conflict? thanks. Edited June 28, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 6.3 client works with 6.1 application. You probably just needed to forget the client and log it in again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grofvert Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 "forget the client and log it in again" When I did the forget client, it wouldn't show up to add. Before it would let me add them (and get by the name conflict when working on the v6 app) I had to roll back the client. It wouldn't see them. So the newest release of server app for both v6 and v8 are supposed to work with the 6.3 client w/o name conflict and w/o name conflicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I think an uninstall and reinstall of the 6.3 client would have also fixed this problem, and the downgrade to the 6.1 client may not have been needed. Name Login conflicts happen when a client is already logged in and you are trying to login a computer that Retrospect believes is a different client for the same computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooster101 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 I also get very bad speeds doing a copy operation from one server to the Retrospect server over a gigabit LAN. Server being backed up - Xserve G5 Server 10.4.11 Server acting as Retrospect server - G4 Quicksilver Client 10.4.11 I know that G4´s are supposed to be slow but 20 times slower than the same G4 running Retrsoepct 6.1 - can this be correct? I get a average speed of 500 - 600 MB/minute on Retrospect 6.1 I get a average speed of 25 - 30 MB/minute on Retrospect 8.1 Is this really what I can expect from Retrospect 8.1 on slower hardware? As I see it this is just a simple copy operation from one machine to another (without any compression) and should not take 35 hours to complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 We have seen some slow speeds on slow G4 systems. Dual Processor G4 systems do much better. from other parts of the forum, and Read me For the highest possible performance, use a higher powered Power PC whenever possible. The minimum configuration for the engine on Power PC is: Power PC G5 processor, or dual Power PC G4 processors running at 867 MHz or faster Mac OS X 10.4.11 or 10.5.5 or later At least 2 GB RAM 10-15 GB of hard disk space for each concurrent activity (backup, restore, etc.) You will see much greater performance with disk based backups when Software Compression has been turned off. If I remember, my old Quicksilver was a 733 single processor system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooster101 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) The G4 in question is a 1 x 867 MHz with 1.25 GB RAM (Max 1.5 GB RAM on this model) Edited June 30, 2009 by Guest Max RAM added Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) And the minimum requirement is a "dual Power PC G4 processors running at 867 MHz or faster with At least 2 GB RAM" so that may help explain the extra slow performance. If you want to keep trying, make sure all software based compression is turned off. A simple intel based Mac Mini can give you a huge speed boost over a G4 with Retrospect. Edited June 30, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooster101 Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Thanks for the answers! The setup in question involves a SCSI LTO 3 drive so a MacMini is not very good in this case. There is no compression to turn off as this is a simple copy operation I´m testing at the moment. I´m just very confused how a simple copy can be this slow when I get 20 times the performance on the same hardware in Retrospect 6.1. I will move the backup duty to a Xserve G5 in a month or two but I did not think that the preformance would differ this much between the versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 The Xserve should do a better job then the old G4. I assume the Xserve has more RAM too. Retrospect 8 is an Intel Native program and to run on a PowerPC, a lot of data structure translations need to be performed which is greatly impacted by the CPU speed and RAM. It is not unexpected for a newer program to require much more horsepower then the older codebase. We wanted to spend more time optimizing the performance but we needed to release the software. We will continue working on performance optimization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredturner Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 It is not unexpected for a newer program to require much more horsepower than the older codebase. We wanted to spend more time optimizing the performance but we needed to release the software. We will continue working on performance optimization. Thanks for this! I would urge you to do everything you can to make at least the copying portion (if not the scanning/comparing) as fast as possible on older hardware. Reason I say this is that I would imagine a lot of people out there are like my clients and me-- we take an older machine that doesn't really run the interface of the latest systems/apps that fast anymore, and make them file and/or backup servers. While they may no longer make great workstations, they can do a pretty good job of hosting files or dumping other workstations' data onto backup disks/tapes. Thanks, Fred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disegno Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I'll chime in here too re slow client backups. Clients - Mac Pro's - Quad Core 2x2.8Ghz - 10GB RAM Server - latest xServe Quad Core Xeon 2x2.26Ghz - 12GB RAM Backing up to SCSI Tape - Tandberg LTO-4 HH Ext LVD via Dual Channel Ultra320 SCSI Card Retrospect 6.1 = averages 1GB - 2GB / min Retrospect 8.1 = averages 150MB / min Latest version of Retrospect, all under 10.5.7 (server + clients) Surely, you can't blame slow hardware here...? Back to 6.1 for client backups... Christiaan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wooster101 Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Same 20:1 speed ratio as my old PPC G4 test machine with new Intel hardware?! Does not sound good... I have to stick to 6.1 and BRU (different customers) for the time being then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt.simpson Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) I thought I should also chime in on this, just to mention my results. I installed Retrospect 8.1 Build 148 on an older G4 PPC Mac Mini (which I've been using to run Retrospect 6.1 for years)... 24 hours after the backup started Retrospect 8.1 had backed up only 2.2GB of data from a Linux server running the latest Retroclient. I was getting *maybe* 3.5MB / minute. I stopped the 8.1 backup, started up Retrospect 6.1 again (same machine, same client version) and am getting 20+MB / minute from the same remote machine. Retrospect 8.1 is designed very nicely, and I love how you can have the server and console on different machines; however, something is definitely up with the speed in which it's able to perform backups. Retrospect 8 is an Intel Native program and to run on a PowerPC, a lot of data structure translations need to be performed which is greatly impacted by the CPU speed and RAM. That makes a lot of sense, that's for sure... I was just surprised as the load on the Mac Mini wasn't significantly higher when backing up with Retrospect 8.1 than 6.1. Definitely looking forward to the next release and I'll try it out again. Edited July 10, 2009 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.