none
On wire compression behavior. RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hello everyone. I have a situation that Im trying to resolve here. File synchronization's are taking far too long. It wasn't always this way, over time the volume grew and now has a lot of tiny files. I have a feeling on wire compression might help out. The server in question is a single VM with different data to protect, File level & Application level SQL). This single VM has two PG groups created for it. One for the files, one for SQL. If On-wire compression is enable on the File PG, how will affect the other PG if its set to OFF. Example, a file synchronization job is occurring but a SQL recovery point now needs to occur. Does the agent have the ability to handle compression on one job and not the other at the same time ? I know you're probably thinking just turn on wire compression on for both PGs but Im just interested to see if someone has any input.

    DPM server is 2010

    Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:53 PM

Answers

  • Hi Mike,

    The agent should handle this without any problems as it is using two separate VSS writers to perform the backups, so one is independent from the other.

    Note that, by enabling compression, you will use some of the local resources within the VM (processor mainly, but also a little more memory) for the compression to happen.

    In regards to backup performance, I would strongly recommend to upgrade DPM to 2012 R2 (or better yet 2016 when it becomes available for download) as there as been some massive preformance improvements done in those versions compare to 2010.


    Hope this helps, Stephane

    • Marked as answer by Mike_Kubi Monday, October 3, 2016 1:15 PM
    Friday, September 30, 2016 2:36 AM

All replies

  • Hi Mike,

    The agent should handle this without any problems as it is using two separate VSS writers to perform the backups, so one is independent from the other.

    Note that, by enabling compression, you will use some of the local resources within the VM (processor mainly, but also a little more memory) for the compression to happen.

    In regards to backup performance, I would strongly recommend to upgrade DPM to 2012 R2 (or better yet 2016 when it becomes available for download) as there as been some massive preformance improvements done in those versions compare to 2010.


    Hope this helps, Stephane

    • Marked as answer by Mike_Kubi Monday, October 3, 2016 1:15 PM
    Friday, September 30, 2016 2:36 AM
  • Thanks yes Im aware of the additional load placed on the hardware. I have a new server here waiting to go into our datacenter with DPM 2012 R2. From what I read they still haven't solved the issues with consistency checks taking forever on large volumes with tons of single files.

    Monday, October 3, 2016 1:12 PM
  • Indeed, it's better, but still takes a lot of time.

    DPM 2016 will be available for download soon (in the next week or so), and I know the product team has been focusing a lot on the storage usage and management, so this could potentially help you further and is probably worth looking into.


    Hope this helps, Stephane

    Thursday, October 6, 2016 8:31 AM