Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..
-
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@Kris_K said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
Ok, did the math, seems like its reading at ~30MB/s. Again, what kind of storage do you have that's it is "killing"?.. Single hdd can cope with such speeds..
This VM is sitting on an OBR10 array, and only this VM is slow on the array. At least at start up recently from "last night" according to my boss.
If the disk was being saturated, seems like everything on the array would notice.
-
@Dashrender said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
I don't know enough about VM at this level - so don't crusify me if my question is stupid.
But if this is an OBR10, and no other VMs are having performance issues, and you're not limiting IOPs access to the VM somehow (maybe you are?) then why assume the storage is the root of the performance issue?
As Kris mentioned, wouldn't the host give the VM as much IOPs as it wants as long as the nothing else is asking for them?
Yes, it will use as many IOPS as it can that are available. So that alone isn't indicating a problem.
-
So the question that I have is, why should a single VM hitting 600-700 IOPS really be slow while running this?
Just make no sense when everything else on the host is running fine. Nothing I was able to capture showed anything else even coming close to a high usage.
-
How are you measuring the slowness? What does it "feel" like?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
So the question that I have is, why should a single VM hitting 600-700 IOPS really be slow while running this?
Just make no sense when everything else on the host is running fine. Nothing I was able to capture showed anything else even coming close to a high usage.
Maybe the problem isn't in hardware, but in a process that's running.
Now I don't understand why a process wouldn't have the processors pegged out (and perhaps a single core is pegged out - i.e. single threaded process) to allow the process to be completed as fast as possible.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
How are you measuring the slowness? What does it "feel" like?
As was reported to me, an extremely long log in period. (It feels like listening to nails on a chalk board)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
How are you measuring the slowness? What does it "feel" like?
As was reported to me, an extremely long log in period. (It feels like listening to nails on a chalk board)
Logging into the app or the server (VM)?
-
@Dashrender said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@DustinB3403 said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
@scottalanmiller said in Shadow Protect and Disk IOPS usage..:
How are you measuring the slowness? What does it "feel" like?
As was reported to me, an extremely long log in period. (It feels like listening to nails on a chalk board)
Logging into the app or the server (VM)?
Logging into the VM using the console, or RDP.
-
What's the CPU usage like in the VM?
-
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.
