bck666 Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Hi, I'm seeing an increase of 625 "out of memory" errors on both my Retrospect MultiServer dedicated backup servers(i.e. no other background jobs are running). One box is running WinNT server, the other is running Win2K Pro; both have 512MB ram. I've gone through the KB, still have a few questions: 1) Will upgrading(clean install), to WinXP help the "situation" ? 2) The max ram Retrospect will utilize is 1 GB, correct ? 3) Any other suggestions ? (Besides the one about hacking up the offending volume in little pieces and then backing up each piece.) thanks, alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 How many files/folders and sessions are you trying to backup. Memory Management under W2K is similar to Windows XP, so I would not expect a big change. Make sure you add yourself to the memory Management notify newsletter http://list.dantz.com/mailman/listinfo/win_memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bck666 Posted April 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Hi, > How many files/folders and sessions are you trying to backup. How is a "session" defined ? Unable to do the "Volumes Database -> Browse" trick at the moment, here's the log entry if that's any help: - 3/31/2003 5:51:37 PM: Copying DATA (D:) on XXXXXX Not enough application memory 3/31/2003 6:16:27 PM: Execution incomplete Remaining: 286389 files, 46.6 GB Completed: 0 files, zero KB Performance: 0.0 MB/minute Duration: 00:24:49 (00:24:46 idle/loading/preparing) Here's the destination backup set spec: 3 members is use, 32 sessions, 13 Snapshots > Memory Management under W2K is similar to Windows XP, so I would not expect a big change. Ok. > Make sure you add yourself to the memory Management notify newsletter Did that after my KB search... Can you give me an example of a "Retrospect Dream Machine" ? (i.e. CPU/mem setup) I'm in the process of spec'ng replacement hardware for our servers..., looking in detail at the KB article(ID 27854) on 625 errors: RAM(MB) vs. Number of Files and Folders 128MB - 716,000 256MB - 1,423,000 348MB - 1,439,510 512MB - 1,439,510 My guess is a 1 GB ram(the max Retrospect can utilize), won't do a lot to improve performance. Is this true ? thanks, alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 286k files does not seem like too much, unless you also have another 500k folders or something. Windows NT has poor memory management, but the newer systems should be okay with this configuration. With Retrospect closed, can you tell how much physical RAM is available on the computer. It could be that Windows, and other processes on the computer are using up the majority of the physical RAM, preventing Retrospect from scanning. A computer with 1.5GB of RAM, would leave enough for the OS and other processes, while allowing Retrospect to have a ton of free RAM for scanning. As a test, I would install Retrospect on a different computer, install a client on this computer with 256k files and try a Configure>volumes scan over the network. This will help you identify if the problem is isolated to something on the original backup computer that was preventing a disk scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bck666 Posted April 4, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 > 286k files does not seem like too much, unless you also have another 500k folders > or something. How do you find out how many folders ? I know during the scan phase a window pops up showing scan progress in terms of folders/files, but this window quickly disappears... > Windows NT has poor memory management, but the newer systems should be okay > with this configuration. > > With Retrospect closed, can you tell how much physical RAM is available on the > computer. It could be that Windows, and other processes on the computer are > using up the majority of the physical RAM, preventing Retrospect from scanning. With Retrospect closed, Task Manager reports: Physical Memory (K) Total 522,480 Available 430,156 File Cache 28,488 > A computer with 1.5GB of RAM, would leave enough for the OS and other processes, > while allowing Retrospect to have a ton of free RAM for scanning. Ok, 1.5 GB..., how about dual Xeon procs ? Does Retrospect utilize dual processors (i.e. multithreaded) ? > As a test, I would install Retrospect on a different computer, install a client on this > computer with 256k files and try a Configure>volumes scan over the network. This > will help you identify if the problem is isolated to something on the original backup > computer that was preventing a disk scan. I rebooted the backup server(the NT one), and scanned the "offending" volume, no problem(55,892 folders, 370,782 files). thanks, alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 Quote: Here's the destination backup set spec: 3 members is use, 32 sessions, 13 Snapshots How much data is actually in the backup set? You can find this information through Configure > Backup Sets > Properties. What does it list for Summary tab > Used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 4, 2003 Report Share Posted April 4, 2003 Glad to see a restart helped out. Retrospect should be able to use the dual processor. If Windows uses it, we use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.