Recommended Posts

Hi,

So I've got a HP DL160 G6 running with an HP SmartArray p410i 1GB super-capacitor RAM-based cache, and am using 3*15K RPM 73GB SAS drives in a RAID5 configuration and I have a single 500GB WD enterprise SATA drive connected too...

Now I know in comparison to the Dell PERC6 that the HP SA is a steaming pile of trash, it's much slower for reasons I've never been able to work out despite having a much better spec.

But this always gets me, I back up my VMs using the SSH server in ESXi and I have downtime of 50 minutes to transfer a 22GB VM, which is absolutely bloody rediculous (it's still not finished copying) and I'm just at a loss as to why. The 500GB drive isn't anything amazing, just a standard 7200 RPM drive but to transfer a VM at less than 7MBps is just... I'm speechless. I can transfer files faster on a 32 bit SCSI card faster than this.

 

Does anyone have a similar setup or any tips for this? (It's ESXi 5.1 and both file-systems are VMFS-5) I've got 4 more VMs to backup after this then apply some system updates and it's looking like it's going to take the whole day. I don't think it's a hardware speed problem, I'm thinking it's down to ###### poor drivers from HP for the p410i (hpaucli is [in comparison to dell's PERC utilities] a complete joke) or something up with ESXi but don't really know how I can go about test either or speeding it up.

Is the vmkern network on the same or a different physical port from the interface on your primary vSwitch?

 

I read that performance is awful unless this is separated (although I have never tried).

  On 24/01/2015 at 12:18, Fahim S. said:

Is the vmkern network on the same or a different physical port from the interface on your primary vSwitch?

 

I read that performance is awful unless this is separated (although I have never tried).

Ah, I don't mean I'm coping the data over SSH, I just mean I'm connected via SSH to do the file copying. It's going direct disk-to-disk on the same host.

At 11:58 I started copying a 10GB VM, 25 minutes later it's still not finished, so this copy speed is definitely slower than 7MBps.

How exactly are you doing this copy.. Are you going to the datastore and downloading the vm disk?

 

How is your vmkern - is it shared with another nic.. I noticed a huge increase in performance when broke out vmkern to its own port group on its own nic..

 

post-14624-0-74552400-1422101386.png

 

So here I started a download of vm - clicked go at 6:07:30..  Its downloading now, This is off a HP N40L with cheap nics added, the vmkern is using the built in nic I do believe.. If I look at my network performance for my pc I downloading the file too - getting pretty decent network util

 

post-14624-0-94754700-1422101722.png

 

Ok done...  looks like 20min

 

post-14624-0-40134400-1422102622.png

 

See the time created, and then last modified time..  So lets call it 34GB / 20 min = 1.7GB a min = 28MBps, which clearly is not full speed of my network..  I normally see double or triple that from the nas on the same esxi..  But it is inline with with how the vmkern works, etc..

 

edit:  So your dong disk to disk copy on your esxi host?  via cli command..  Let me test that with this same 34GB file..  I have a SSD datastore and the 250GB disk it came with as datastore as well..  BRB

 

Ok so started at 6:38:30 and so far its copied 3.8GB in 3 minutes.. 

so at 10 min mark bit over 12GB

 

/vmfs/volumes/54c39196-0f3ec6fc-3df2-001f29541714/test # ls -la
total 12049416
drwxr-xr-x    1 root     root           420 Jan 24 12:38 .
drwxr-xr-t    1 root     root          1400 Jan 24 12:37 ..
-rw-------    1 root     root     12343582720 Jan 24 12:48 w7x64-clean-flat.vmdk
/vmfs/volumes/54c39196-0f3ec6fc-3df2-001f29541714/test #

 

So I would have to say, seems like a bit slower than the download copy..  But that 250GB disk is pretty old crappy disk ;)

 

So at 20min, 24GB roughly looks like about 20MBps which yeah is like 3x what your seeing and this is just the controller that that comes with the N40L..

Not an answer to your problem but you could use ghettoVCB which is a free backup script for ESXi and works quite well. Bit fiddly to set up but once done it's fine. 

 

I have it scripted so I just log into the host and run a script to do the backup then once done I can copy the backup files without having to take down any of the servers.

I've now shut down all VMs except one (my W7 remote management VM) and I've taken a screenshot of it... Something really is not right here.

aNS6w1g.png

EDIT: Changed around the graph output (bit hard on a small VNC screen) and it's apparently reading at 6MBps from the main drive and writing to the backup drive at 15MBps... I can't understand how it's writing twice the data it's reading!

 

 

  On 24/01/2015 at 12:45, Depicus said:

Not an answer to your problem but you could use ghettoVCB which is a free backup script for ESXi and works quite well. Bit fiddly to set up but once done it's fine. 

 

I have it scripted so I just log into the host and run a script to do the backup then once done I can copy the backup files without having to take down any of the servers.

I can't do that as I've got snapshots disabled and have all changes written to the disk as they're performed.

Edited by n_K

Ok so it finished

 

/vmfs/volumes/54c39196-0f3ec6fc-3df2-001f29541714/test # stat w7x64-clean-flat.vmdk
  File: w7x64-clean-flat.vmdk
  Size: 34359738368     Blocks: 67108864   IO Block: 131072 regular file
Device: 831f0b1fc2871364h/9448282774282113892d  Inode: 4225796     Links: 1
Access: (0600/-rw-------)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
Access: 2015-01-24 12:38:34.000000000
Modify: 2015-01-24 13:06:49.000000000
Change: 2015-01-24 13:06:49.000000000
 

 

So we got 28 min for 34GB, roughly 20MBps, which yeah is blowing you away on crappier hardware.... Hmmmmmm??

you could try dd command vs cp, doing a test now looks like 4.9GB in 3 minutes vs the 3.8 with the cp command, let me try uping the bs from 1M

 

edit:  Well using dd seems to get me the speeds I saw with download..  About 28MBps vs the 20 was seeing with cp.

 

edit2:  ok -- seems cp has really be depreciated for a while on esxi.. your suppose to use vmfsktools command..

 

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx_3p_scvcons.pdf

For performance and data placement reasons, do not use scp or cp; instead, use vmkfstools, the Virtual Machine Importer tool from VMware, or the SDK APIs to manipulate your virtual disks. You should see very significant performance improvements if you use the recommended tools.

 

So doing a copy of that same vm using

/vmfs/volumes/535605bc-d0c25a0d-7cf0-001f29541714/w7 # vmkfstools -i /vmfs/volumes/datastore0/w7/w7x64-clean.vmdk /vmfs/volumes/datastore1/test/test.vmdk
Destination disk format: VMFS zeroedthick
Cloning disk '/vmfs/volumes/datastore0/w7/w7x64-clean.vmdk'...
Clone: 100% done.
 

was done in 4.25 min or 133MBps

 

/vmfs/volumes/54c39196-0f3ec6fc-3df2-001f29541714/test # stat test.vmdk
  File: test.vmdk
  Size: 514             Blocks: 0          IO Block: 131072 regular file
Device: 831f0b1fc2871364h/9448282774282113892d  Inode: 8420100     Links: 1
Access: (0600/-rw-------)  Uid: (    0/    root)   Gid: (    0/    root)
Access: 2015-01-24 13:38:46.000000000
Modify: 2015-01-24 13:42:57.000000000
Change: 2015-01-24 13:42:57.000000000
 

 

post-14624-0-99362500-1422107393.png

 

Argh the dd is an annoying busybox version, just started running it with all the ibs and out set to 16MB and will see what happens with an 8GB file!

Did not know that about cp on ESXi, thanks budman! I'll see if DD increases the speed and if not will retry with that command, I'm assuming it doesn't bother copying the blank space and speeds up transfer that way, the VM I'm copying now is 90% utilised so it probably wouldn't save much time.

 

EDIT: OK no there is definitely something not right, 3Gbps link speeds between the SATA/SAS disks and the controller, 0.2GB copied in 30 seconds.

Edited by n_K

Dude see my edit.. Use vmkfstools -i src dst

 

My test shows a SCREAMING difference..   What you got to loose..  It sure can not be any slower than your dd or cp commands ;)

  On 24/01/2015 at 12:52, n_K said:

I can't do that as I've got snapshots disabled and have all changes written to the disk as they're performed.

 

Curios as to why you disabled snapshots.

Just tried on a 23GB disk after the 8GB DD finished budman;

/vmfs/volumes/508aa94d-fbcf15ba-0faf-68b599b49d30/Jan 24 2015/W7 # vmkfstools -i /vmfs/volumes/Main/Windows\ 7\ Pro
fessional-N\ x64/Windows\ 7\ Professional-N\ x64.vmdk /vmfs/volumes/Backup\ Disk/Jan\ 24\ 2015/W7/
Destination disk format: VMFS zeroedthick
Cloning disk '/vmfs/volumes/Main/Windows 7 Professional-N x64/Windows 7 Professional-N x64.vmdk'...
Failed to clone disk: The file already exists (39).
Ignore, I'm being dense and not putting in the filename!

 

  On 24/01/2015 at 14:11, Depicus said:

Curios as to why you disabled snapshots.

Uses space which I don't have that much of.

Yeah that is much better ;)  Should be a helpful thread for other people I think.. I don't normally move files between datastores

 

Now not sure on what your original was..  Was it thick, or thin?  Notice it defaults to thickzero'd -- so if was thin before, your backup isn't.  if you want to maintain thin you can do -d thin on the end.  But that took about double the time to copy..  But I would think even 10 minutes for you would be much better than what you were seeing.

Not so sure its really a performance booster doing that any more.. If on SSD datastore makes no difference for sure.. So your storage is local, is it VAAI ??  Do you see hardware acceleration when you look at your datastores?

 

There are lots of variables at play when it comes to performance - a we see in this example using a deprecated common way that many people would do can have huge performance implications.. Comes down to your requirements.  I for sure have my storage over provisioned for sure.. Small datastore..  And play with lots of vms, I don't see any reason to suck up all the space with zeros ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I’d be wanting to offload it fast too, wasted desk real estate.
    • AMD Ryzen 9600X 6-core AM5 CPU is just $185 and you get a free 512GB NVMe SSD too by Sayan Sen If you are on AMD's AM4 socket or older Intel and are looking to upgrade your processor, AMD has the Ryzen 9600X for just $185 (purchase link down below), plus you get a free NVMe SSD as well. The deal comes hot on the heels of Intel also offering the Core i5-14600K for as low as just $200, which includes a 240 mm AIO liquid cooler. Check that deal out in this article if you want to go Team Blue. The AMD Ryzen 9600X is based on the latest Zen 5 design and is the company's best chip to date. This desktop CPU has six cores and 12 threads; it competes with Intel's 12th Gen i7 for productivity performance, and is almost as good as the 14th Gen i7 for gaming. The SKU does not include a cooler and so you will need to buy one separately. The technical specifications of the Ryzen 5 9600X are given below: Architecture: Zen 5 Process Technology: TSMC 4nm FinFET manufacturing process Core Count: 6 cores Thread Count: 12 threads Base Clock Frequency: 3.9 GHz Max Boost Clock Frequency: 5.4 GHz Total Cache: 6 MB + 32 MB (L2 + L3) Thermal Design Power (TDP): 65W PCI Express Version: PCIe 5.0 28 lanes (usable: 24) Overclocking: Unlocked for overclocking TjMax: 95 C Platform Socket: AM5 Memory capacity support: max 192 GB DDR5 Memory Speed: 2x1R DDR5-5600, 2x2R DDR5-5600, 4x1R DDR5-3600, 4x2R DDR5-3600 Get it at the links below: AMD Ryzen 5 9600X (includes Radeon 2CU Integrated Graphics) - 100-100001405WOF: $184.99 (Shipped and Sold by Amazon US) | $189.99 (Shipped and Sold by Newegg US + free 512 GB NVMe SSD) This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the Amazon US deals page here. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Hello, The general things are to make sure you have all of the latest Windows Updates installed as well as various device drivers for the computer's hardware components (video card, storage devices, etc.), as these can make a difference.  It might be small differences, but they can add up.  Case in point:  I was reading a while back about how in Windows 11 when you right-click on an object in File Explorer to bring up the context menu, it first enables to 3-D acceleration… to display a menu with text and maybe some 2-D icons.  Such behavior slows down the display of the context menu slightly.  If (and/or when) this gets fixed in Windows 11, context menus in File Explorer will appear much snappier. A few things you can try, in no particular order: Try toggling the full screen view of File Explorer on and off by pressing the F11 key twice.  This fixes another (different) bug like the one I mentioned above with Windows.  I don't recall if it has been fixed yet. Open the File Explorer, and look at the Panes section.  Click on the Navigation Pane button, and uncheck all of the options you do not need, like Navigation Pane, Show all folders, Show This PC, Show Network and Show Libraries.  You can also deselect (uncheck) the Preview pane and Details pane. In the Layout section, change the viewing option to either List or Details. if you use the Quick Access section in the left pane of the File Explorer, unpin (remove) any mappings to network drives, plus anything else you do not need or regularly access.  If you do not use it at all, consider unpinning everything there. In the File Explorer, select File → Options to bring up the Folder Options dialog and make the following changes: On the General tab, set Open File Explorer to This PC and below it in the Privacy section, uncheck the various Show… options and click on the Clear button. On the View tab, check the Always show icons, never thumbnails and the Launch folder windows in a separate process options.  Also on the View tab, uncheck the Display file size information in folder tips, Display the full path in the title bar, Restore previous folder windows at logon, Show preview handlers in preview pane and all of the options in the Navigation pane section. On the Search tab, scroll down the the When searching non-indexed locations section, and uncheck all of the items. Go to Settings → Network & internet → Advanced network settings → Advanced sharing settings and select the Private networks section.  In there, set Network discovery to On, enable (check) Set up network connected devices automatically, and set File and printer sharing to On.  Do not make any changes to the Public networks or All networks sections. Go to Settings → Privacy & security → Searching Windows and in the Find my files section, select (check) the Classic option.   Under the Classic option, select the Customize search locations option.  The Indexing Options window will appear.  Click on the Modify button to show the Indexed Locations window.  Click on the Show all locations button.  In the Change selection locations section at the top, remove any entries that say ""This location is currently unavailable" in them. Go back to the Indexing Options window, and click on the Advanced button.  The Advanced Options window will appear.  On the Index Settings tab, click the Rebuild tab. Other things to consider:  If you upgraded from Windows 10 to Windows 11 and/or cloned your boot drive (from a HDD to a SSD or a SSD to another SSD), wiping it and performing a clean installation of Windows 11 may improve performance, as legacy settings from the older hardware will no longer be in place.  If you are still using a hard disk drive, upgrading to a solid state drive will provide a noticeable performance improvement to all operations that involve accessing the drive. You can also try using third-party replacements for the Start Menu (Start 11, StartAllBack, etc.) and/or Windows File Explorer (Directory Opus, Double Commander, Explorer++, Files, FAR, Free Commander, Midnight Commander, Q-Dir, Total Commander, XYplorer ,etc.) to see if those perform better for you than Windows stock versions.  I don't think changing the antivirus software would have any effect, but it is something you could try as well, just to see if it does make any difference. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • I think it's bloody great, old chap!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      elsafaacompany earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Yianis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Veteran
      Travesty went up a rank
      Veteran
    • One Month Later
      somar86 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      somar86 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      260
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      186
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      177
    5. 5
      snowy owl
      132
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!