Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..
-
Nominal CPU usage.
-
Could it be waiting on something from the network?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
Could it be waiting on something from the network?
I don't suspect so.... this server runs a tiny spiceworks installation, and processes reports from Salesforce.
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
-
I haven't had a SW installation in a while, but it seems like I remembered it being pretty disk intensive at startup.
Edit: NVM. You show the SP process as being what is eating up all the disk activity.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
this server runs a tiny spiceworks installation
There is no such thing.
-
@JaredBusch said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
this server runs a tiny spiceworks installation
There is no such thing.
LOL, it's true. Even the smallest SW install has a massive footprint.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
Even a tiny SW install we recommend some hefty resources and dedicated SSDs. You definitely just figured out the problem. Had you led with this we could have told you instantly what the issue was.
-
Have you tried excluding the SW directories from backing up with SP?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
Even a tiny SW install we recommend some hefty resources and dedicated SSDs. You definitely just figured out the problem. Had you led with this we could have told you instantly what the issue was.
Our rather beefy SW install runs on rust just fine. Not even a half decent rust array. Old junk.
-
@MattSpeller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
Even a tiny SW install we recommend some hefty resources and dedicated SSDs. You definitely just figured out the problem. Had you led with this we could have told you instantly what the issue was.
Our rather beefy SW install runs on rust just fine. Not even a half decent rust array. Old junk.
I'm surprised. Even when ours was tiny we gave it 100,000 IOPS and it remained slow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@MattSpeller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
Even a tiny SW install we recommend some hefty resources and dedicated SSDs. You definitely just figured out the problem. Had you led with this we could have told you instantly what the issue was.
Our rather beefy SW install runs on rust just fine. Not even a half decent rust array. Old junk.
I'm surprised. Even when ours was tiny we gave it 100,000 IOPS and it remained slow.
¯\(ツ)/¯
There's only 3 of us in IT here. I suspect more concurrent users would kill it.
-
@MattSpeller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@MattSpeller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
The read usage on this system is insane for what it is normally doing.
Even a tiny SW install we recommend some hefty resources and dedicated SSDs. You definitely just figured out the problem. Had you led with this we could have told you instantly what the issue was.
Our rather beefy SW install runs on rust just fine. Not even a half decent rust array. Old junk.
I'm surprised. Even when ours was tiny we gave it 100,000 IOPS and it remained slow.
¯\(ツ)/¯
There's only 3 of us in IT here. I suspect more concurrent users would kill it.
We had probably ten or fifteen and loads of tickets. But that isn't that much of a jump, I wouldn't think.
