Decrease in backup speed after change from HP DP 09.09 to DP 24.1

Hi,

We have made the change from HP DP 09.09 to DP 24.1. File archiving is carried out in several branches controlled from headquarters. 


In one of the branches there is an LTO7 autoloader - Quantum Super Loader 3, connected to barmetal server with Windows server 2019.
In the old version of HP DP was in the same configuration of backup and Autoloader, data backup of about 4.3 TB took about 8 hours. Now after changing to the new version of HP DP version 24.10, the same amount of data takes about 80 hours. This is 10 times slower.

We did update of firmware of Autoloder to version 106, but IBM tape drive is still in version M571 becouse update still give error: Bad Code Update Image Data: Comunication error (code: 0x71)

We upgrade drivers for windows server 2019 for drive and autoloader.  

After it timing went to 64 hours. At other branches but with diffirent Autoloader has no problems. 

 

What could be the reason? What else can I check? We have not changed anything in the network configuration, etc. this situation occurs immediately after the change. 

Parents
  • 0  

    So the problem is seen in one of the branches only. Something which is maybe worth testing is to run the same backup to a null device. Create a null device on the same Windows media agent, make a copy of the backup specification, replace the devices by the null device and run a test backup. This may give some idea about the location of the bottleneck. The test backup to the null device should be much faster. If that is not the case then the bottleneck most likely isn't located at the devie itself.

    Is there any (software) compression or encryption involved at the disk agent side? This can be seen in the Filesystem options for a file system backup.

    And to state the obvious: if this is only seen with one of the branches then what else can be different specifically with this one compared to the others. I understand nothing was changed, but somehow something has to be different. 


    Koen Verbelen

    Although I am an OpenText employee, I am speaking for myself and not for OpenText.
    If you found this post useful, give it a “Like” or click on "Verify Answer" under the "More" button.
    You may also be interested in my Data Protector Support Tips listed per category

  • 0   in reply to   

    You could run the same null device test with a segment size of 2000, but I doubt this will have any visible impact.

    So overall this test is confirming that you realy have to take a look at the device side ... the device itself, driver, interface, cabling, .... Strange that this is happening right after the upgrade. Has the hardware possibly been touched at the same time in any possible sense?

    As blocksize and buffers are identical and you have proven that the complete infrastructure is handling the load well with the tape library excluded, I have no immediate ideas currently.


    Koen Verbelen

    Although I am an OpenText employee, I am speaking for myself and not for OpenText.
    If you found this post useful, give it a “Like” or click on "Verify Answer" under the "More" button.
    You may also be interested in my Data Protector Support Tips listed per category

  • 0   in reply to   

    Is the path between the Veeam service and our media agent identical? Host, drivers, interface, FC infrastructure, ..... is it 100% identical or are there any differences?


    Koen Verbelen

    Although I am an OpenText employee, I am speaking for myself and not for OpenText.
    If you found this post useful, give it a “Like” or click on "Verify Answer" under the "More" button.
    You may also be interested in my Data Protector Support Tips listed per category

Reply Children
No Data