Ideas needed
Sep. 14th, 2004 01:52 pmRight. I'm trying to diagnose a problem with our backup server.
I have a log file, that tells me: start time, finish time, 'quantity' of data backed up and number of files. Along with things like filesystem and backup 'level' (incremental or full).
The problem is, I _know_ it's running 'a bit slow'. And I need to figure out how best to represent this information, such that it's 'obvious' if there's a particular culprit.
My suspicion is that we're just 'overloaded' and need more tape drives, but they're not cheap, and so if we go that route, it'd better fix the problem...
Anyone got thoughts on the subject?
I have a log file, that tells me: start time, finish time, 'quantity' of data backed up and number of files. Along with things like filesystem and backup 'level' (incremental or full).
The problem is, I _know_ it's running 'a bit slow'. And I need to figure out how best to represent this information, such that it's 'obvious' if there's a particular culprit.
My suspicion is that we're just 'overloaded' and need more tape drives, but they're not cheap, and so if we go that route, it'd better fix the problem...
Anyone got thoughts on the subject?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 06:10 am (UTC)got thoughts
Date: 2004-09-14 06:36 am (UTC)Re: got thoughts
Date: 2004-09-14 07:15 am (UTC)At the moment, I'm aiming for staggered chart looking something like this:
18:00-------19:00-----20:00 --- HOSTNAME:/FS -- HOSTNAME:/FS -- HOSTNAME:/FS ---- HOSTNAME:/FS -- HOSTNAME:/FS -------- HOSTNAME:/FS --- Throughput 18:00-------19:00-----20:00 | | ||| || |||| || ||||| ||Ok, crappy formatting I know ;p And it'll probably not turn out right when I submit this, so I can try to corellate 'slow' jobs, with throughput troughs.
Full logging is about plan D at the moment, because the amount of rubbish something like a truss will grab is going to be horrible. We're talking maybe a Terabyte a night here, so...