Backup exec running at 3.00MB/sec

[djh]

nope it's definately displaying 3mb/sec. the point is that all other windows backups are runnign at around 980MB/sec.

Dan

[soapyfish]

980MB per second !

thats extremely fast do you have 10gb connectivity ?

[djh]

The full and diff windows backups range between around 500 - 1700 MB/Sec (which i assume is mega byte), and then the transfer to tape is around 3300 MB/sec. I'm pulling my hair out over this now, 3MB/sec is ridiculous!!!

[soapyfish]

I think you are getting the speeds wrong to be honest

"The full and diff windows backups range between around 500 - 1700 MB/Sec (which i assume is mega byte), and then the transfer to tape is around 3300 MB/sec. I'm pulling my hair out over this now, 3MB/sec is ridiculous!!! "


A gigabit network link will transfer something like 80 megabytes a second at peak if the data can be supplied into it and recieved from it at that speed. If the data being entered is lots of small files like images, cookies etc this will SIGNIFICANTLY slow the transfer rate down where as if you are transfering .ISO files or movies (anything thats 1 large file) the transfer speed is much higer.

if are are transfering 500megabytes a second then you must have 3 things

1 Extemely faster networking being the cable the switch and the network cards in the servers. This would need to be 10Gigabit ethernet to allow you to even get close to 1700 Megabyte speeds.
although you might do 500 megabyte.

You would also need a very fast disk arrangement in the servers sending and recieving the data to beable to send and right the data at that speed.

Both of these things I doubt a school on a education bugdet could afford.

I would suggest that you are getting MegaByte and MegaBit confused or that the method of measureing is having some kind of problem.

[djh]

what an idiot..... the column under transfer rate was sqaushed so it only displayed the number. it's per minute not per second!!! I had to think about that then.

Any more ideas on the mac backup guys? I think i might get my manager to buy some support from symantec....

[soapyfish]

how are you measuring the transfer speed ? via symantec

[djh]

yeah, in the job history at the bottom theres a 'job rate' column.

[soapyfish]

Ok so its transfering 3 megabytes per minuite to the sysmantec ?

have you tested the speed of just copying a normal file to and from the mac to get a comparison ?
also do you have antivirus software checking the files on the way in and out of the server that can also have a large impact

[djh]

Hi soapyfish,

I have tried transfering files both to and from the mac and the backup srv. They are both copying way quicker than 3.0mb /min, it copied a 40mb file in less than a minute!

We have sophos installed on both server but it doesn't look like thats scanning anything.

Dan

[soapyfish]

Hi Dan,

have to looked at the symantec knowledge base for related issues and is the backup exec up to date patch wise ?

are you using some Mac software called time machine ?

also this thread maybe provide some insight

time machine slow initial backup - fix [Archive] - Mac Forums

[djh]

No we were going to use time machine but it didn't give us as much flexability as we wanted so were using backup exec, which has a client agent which installs with a script from symantec ( i followed the instructions to the t).

[soapyfish]

are you patched and upto date on the agent software and the backup exec itself ?

http://news.support.veritas.com/conn...extremely-slow

would this link apply to your situation ?

Also this one might hold the key

http://www.symantec.com/connect/foru...-system#M20313

[djh]

We're using 12.5 and i downloaded the latest version for symantec file download only a few days ago, also we're not nessilsarily getting any errors any more its just incredibly slow....

[soapyfish]

did you try the links i think the second one with the info about file names might be part of your problem

[djh]

Yep had a look through that, I can't see anything that looks like it could be causing a problem name wise. Thanks anyway.