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

    • It is good that it can be removed. Those users who want it can use it, and those users who do not want it can remove it.
    • Yeah, but I can't blame people given the way things are nowadays with inflated prices that used to be reasonable not all that long ago. but I would not even attempt to offer someone $30 for a 8TB SSD (I know that was just a example of people trying to really low-ball someone though) as trying to undercut the normal-ish price a decent amount is one thing but that much I would not even attempt to offer someone on Ebay etc. but on the flip side... I think some people want more than stuff is worth at times and even when you offer them something reasonable they might take it as a insult etc. but usually these types tend to be a bit more unreasonable/unrealistic with their pricing. I get people don't want to give their stuff away, but at the same time some try to squeeze every last penny out of stuff to. there needs to be some sort of balance there as a guideline. but even when it comes to prices on random stuff... it can be difficult to determine what's roughly fair/reasonable as a happy medium where both sides feel like they did at least okay on the deal. but just off the top of my head buying expensive used stuff, especially stuff that might be more prone to failure (instead of being quite unlikely to fail), I might try to dodge or want a cheaper than usual price to even risk it etc. but I guess I could probably speak for many when it comes to a gaming PC in that a person wants the cheapest possible price for something that's good enough as this tends to be roughly the sweet-spot of $ spent vs real world performance where it really matters. because it's generally not worth paying hundreds extra or more for something that's not significantly better than a more reasonably priced gaming PC that tends to be good enough as I figure once you get a setup that can do roughly 1080p @ 60fps with high enough graphics (or in this ball park either way), the gains past that tend not to be worth spending hundreds of dollars more when that money could be saved and ones current computer (the one that does 1080p @ 60fps with high enough graphics etc) will easily last years (probably 3-5 years for a conservative figure) before they genuinely need a upgrade and the saved hundreds of dollars could be put towards another build at some point in the future. I never understood people who want to build a "better PC" when their current one is still clearly on the faster side of things and still runs pretty much everything more than well enough as you are pretty much just wasting money for something that's not that much better for the vast majority of tasks. like as a ball park when it comes to GPU's, to use NVIDIA as a example... right now I suspect a solid Geforce 20 series GPU is no where near needing a true upgrade as I would say more worthwhile upgrades are more seriously worth considering for people on the Geforce 10 series or older GPU's at the moment as I would probably use that as where the line is roughly drawn if you have to split stuff up into 'current enough' vs 'older' standards (even though I realize say a strong Geforce 10 GPU is still more than solid enough for many). basically, short of a few specialized use situations etc, most people don't need anywhere near high end PC's, even from a gaming perspective since 30fps being playable and 60fps is pretty much perfect have been standards around for decades now as these are the ones that truly matter the most from a general real world gaming perspective. the 120fps+, while might help a bit, is still largely excess luxury in that it's just not worth the extra money unless prices are fairly close as if you got to pay hundreds of dollars more for it, overall most people are better off with the 'slower' setup. p.s. hell, I am still on a i5-3550 CPU (which is 2012 CPU tech) with a NVIDIA 1050 Ti 4GB (which is 2016 GPU tech) and while if I upgraded today I would get a worthwhile difference, but in all honesty the main reason I hold off, besides prices nowadays being a bit inflated, is what games I do play tend to work anywhere from playable (30fps) to perfect-ish (60fps) and I am of the mindset I have a feeling my current GPU etc is more reliable than modern GPU's etc which is another reason I am in no rush to upgrade. I suspect ill eventually be forced into upgrading, but baring major hardware failure out of no where, ill likely be on my current setup for years to come at a minimum. say the rest of this decade, possibly further, especially given while I might play a semi-recent game here and there I am usually replaying games that stand the test of time from the past etc.
    • I have only two Play Anywhere titles from all games I own, and Game Pass doesn't include DLCs. I know it's shocking, but I like to buy premium editions of games I've really liked on Game Pass. I have Ultimate and I've already checked what I can play on PC when I upgraded my laptop to a new one with Nvidia 4070 half a year ago - not much so I haven't even bothered.
    • I hate to break it to you, but if you have the Copilot app installed and up-to-date, you have this. Your computer doesn't need to be a Copilot+ PC to use this, any x86-64 CPU without NPU will do. Also, you don't have to use it, it's not enabled the whole time. Even if you open the Copilot app, you must manually enable Vision on the desired opened windows, it doesn't work by itself. But if you're worried, just remove the Copilot app. Problem solved.
    • no octopus needs seven equal noses. Simply, it can act limpy. Don't worry, Aclarke, it happens
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      POR2GAL4EVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      serfegyed earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      254
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      183
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      166
    5. 5
      Xenon
      122
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!