XenServer Export Performance Seems Poor

DustinB3403

If you read what @Dashrender said, there is no option to enable or disable the compression within Xen Orchestra (it doesn't exist). Since it appears you aren't testing the appliance, why are you trying to comment on the functionality of it?

Dashrender

OK guys.. please take your debate to a WC thread.

BRRABill

@Dashrender

Doesn't answer your export question, but something I came across:
https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xenserver-backup-compress-or-not-compress/

Dashrender

@JaredBusch said:

@Dashrender said:

I created a backup job so I could move forward with testing.

I've installed a 3 TB drive in another desktop. WIn7 SP1 x64 4 GB RAM 1 Gb network connection, same switch as XS.

Backup started at 8:18 AM CDT

Did you disable compression or not? Because that was the limiter before.

Yes I disabled compression for this backup job. When I created a new backup job for this - couldn't use the Export option - I did make sure to check the box to disable compression.

Dashrender

@BRRABill said:

@Dashrender

Doesn't answer your export question, but something I came across:
https://xen-orchestra.com/blog/xenserver-backup-compress-or-not-compress/

Cool thanks - and you're right, While he does say export in the opening line, he's not talking about a single export, he's talking about backups.

I love the more or less one button push to create a one time export/backup of the system, it would be nice though to get a prompt for options (compressed/not compressed). I also wonder - is it efficient to download the "export" through the browser download instead of a direct push like the backup function uses? i.e. is the browser adding any overhead?

With that in mind an option of what pre-mapped mountpoint (network or local) to save to, and compress or non-compress would be to great options to see for the "export" option.

Dashrender

A little more than 5 hours and 270 GB done.

It seems to be going about 2 times faster, maybe 3.

BRRABill

@Dashrender said:

I love the more or less one button push to create a one time export/backup of the system, it would be nice though to get a prompt for options (compressed/not compressed). I also wonder - is it efficient to download the "export" through the browser download instead of a direct push like the backup function uses? i.e. is the browser adding any overhead?

Right, since this basically is a full backup that is being downloaded to your browser.

olivier

@Dashrender In any case, it's not a "full" direct push: it goes through xo-server, since we can't tell XenServer to push itself a VM somewhere. In fact, export is always working in "pull": a HTTP handler is opened by XAPI, and listen for HTTP GET request.

This is valid for everything, xe, XenCenter, XO export through your browser, XO backups etc.

So it's not really an overhead with your browser, xo-server just act as a proxy to deliver your file (so if you don't have network bottleneck between you and xo-server that's OK:

XenServer --> xo-server --> browser

A backup will do:

XenServer --> xo-server --> remote point

But as I said, in any case, xo-server will do a HTTP GET.

The main bottleneck is Gzip compression first. If you disable it, that's another potential bottleneck: the XAPI HTTP handler speed.

Note: the possibility to ask XAPI to push a backup somewhere will be discussed with the XAPI team during Xen Hackathon. IDK if they could do something, but I'll be at their office to explain the issue, in front of the whole dev team.

olivier

By the way you can rename the topic title

Dashrender

@olivier said:

By the way you can rename the topic title

What would you propose?

The title is calling out XenServer, not XO, and as you've stated this is an actual known issue within XS. I'm definitely open to suggestions for a title change though.

Dashrender

@olivier said:

@Dashrender In any case, it's not a "full" direct push: it goes through xo-server, since we can't tell XenServer to push itself a VM somewhere. In fact, export is always working in "pull": a HTTP handler is opened by XAPI, and listen for HTTP GET request.

This is valid for everything, xe, XenCenter, XO export through your browser, XO backups etc.

So it's not really an overhead with your browser, xo-server just act as a proxy to deliver your file (so if you don't have network bottleneck between you and xo-server that's OK:

XenServer --> xo-server --> browser

A backup will do:

XenServer --> xo-server --> remote point

But as I said, in any case, xo-server will do a HTTP GET.

The main bottleneck is Gzip compression first. If you disable it, that's another potential bottleneck: the XAPI HTTP handler speed.

Note: the possibility to ask XAPI to push a backup somewhere will be discussed with the XAPI team during Xen Hackathon. IDK if they could do something, but I'll be at their office to explain the issue, in front of the whole dev team.

Thanks for the explanation. I look forward to what you can share after your discussion about the HTTP handler.

Dashrender

The 700 GB VM was backed up in 13 hours 50 mins with the following setup:
compression disabled
1 GB same switch transfer
SMB sharing protocol
4 TB WD Red drive (single drive) as the target
Windows 7 x64 4 GB RAM

This was 50% faster than using the export feature which enables GZIP and I was saving to a USB 3.0 device.

Dashrender

OK starting last test.

backup compress disabled
Win7 x64 4 GB RAM
1 GB same switch transfer
SMB sharing
2 TB USB 3.0 drive

Started at 9 AM CDT

JaredBusch

@Dashrender said:

OK starting last test.

backup compress disabled
Win7 x64 4 GB RAM
1 GB same switch transfer
SMB sharing
2 TB USB 3.0 drive

Started at 9 AM CDT

I would expect this one to be the same as the last. I doubt you are hitting any kind of bottleneck on the target media.

Dashrender

@JaredBusch said:

I would expect this one to be the same as the last. I doubt you are hitting any kind of bottleneck on the target media.

Yeah, I'm already seeing that be the case. 2 hours in, 108 GB transferred.

olivier

@Dashrender The current title is perfect (didn't see the change before)

Dashrender

@olivier said:

@Dashrender The current title is perfect (didn't see the change before)

Maybe Scott edited it before, I haven't changed it since I posted it.

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said:

@olivier said:

@Dashrender The current title is perfect (didn't see the change before)

Maybe Scott edited it before, I haven't changed it since I posted it.

Yeah, that was me

BRRABill

@Dashrender said

Yeah, I'm already seeing that be the case. 2 hours in, 108 GB transferred.

So around 15MBps is the max we can hope for?

Is that what you ended up determining?

Dashrender

I never tested again after this situation. Perhaps when I get back in the office I will try one.