Time for 2.4 TB first copy?

David_Foster · #1 07-07-2009, 06:46 AM

Hi all,

We are doing a fresh copy using Smart Update to a disk image from one Mac Pro RAID to another Mac Pro RAID over a 1000BT network with a 3Com Gigabit switch. (Both machines use RocketRAIDs.) The source volume has 2.4 TB of data.

The disk image on the backup has been 2.02 TB for about 14 hours now, total elapsed time for the copy has been 33 hours.

The effective copy speed shown this morning is 0.16 MB/s. If my math is right and the copy speed is accurate, it will take another 25 days to finish the copy.

I know SD shows negative copy speeds erroneously, but the Effective Copy Speed displayed seems to match the increase in the disk image size.

Is there a benefit to stopping the copy and re-starting it? Our experience is that stopping the copy midway leaves the disk image unmountable and unusable - is there a safe way to stop and re-start?

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has copied similar amounts of data and the copy times for it.

Thanks to all!

dnanian · #2 07-07-2009, 08:09 AM

You're copying 2.4TB of data over a network, rather than locally? Yeah, that's going to take a while.

Stopping the copy should not leave an image unmountable/unusable, unless the image is already damaged. The fact that it stopped at 2TB makes me think that the drive has a 2TB file size limit (images can be petabyte sized, so I don't think it's the image itself).

If you look in the log (Cmd+L) are you getting errors at the bottom with retries?

dnanian · #3 07-07-2009, 08:13 AM

Note that I've just re-checked HFS+, and it also has a really huge maximum file size, so I don't think that's it either... unless the RocketRAID has some weird limits, or the network FS does.

If you look at the Get Info for the image volume, does it have the maximum size you'd expect?

David_Foster · #4 07-07-2009, 08:22 AM

dnanian · #5 07-07-2009, 08:42 AM

A crossover isn't going to help much, since you're still indirecting I/O through the network and image layers. The fact that you're not getting any errors is a good thing... as is the growth of the image.

(By image volume I meant the name of the image 'disk' in finder - white icon, named "RAID-Daily".)

Sounds like it's chugging along slowly... not sure what to suggest other than "this might be too much data to copy over a network with SD!, given the speeds you're getting", but it doesn't sound like you have an alternative.

David_Foster · #6 07-07-2009, 08:50 AM

The image volume looks right, the same capacity and available as the RAID, and the used amount matches the size of the sparse image. Seems right to me.

A couple of questions:

Is there any potential benefit to stopping the copy and re-starting it? (Restarting both machines, clearing the caches, etc.)

Can we use and make changes to the RAID while it's in the copy process? I'm afraid that the changes made during the copy will somehow make the verification fail.

I suppose if I had to do this again, it would be faster to install the two RAID cards in the same machine and connect both the RAID and the backup and copy that way.

Thanks again for your help.

dnanian · #7 07-07-2009, 08:53 AM

No, I don't think stopping/restarting will help. It certainly won't make any difference to SD itself. The system, it's hard to say, but conceptually it shouldn't.

If you make changes to files that have already been copied, that should be fine.

Yeah, copying locally would be a lot faster...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Booting from backup	guruuno	General	27	10-16-2009 11:53 PM
Failed to copy error	lmatheo	General	1	03-20-2009 08:27 AM
How do I copy a Time Machine volume?	dnanian	Frequently Asked Questions	0	02-07-2008 06:34 PM
SD! & HDD copy speed fun	DaleMeyn	General	3	03-20-2006 04:24 PM
Error: No space left on device	tradervic	General	11	06-29-2005 04:50 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)