Backup Exec 12 jobs running at 200MB/MIN to eSATA drive

adding to what ryansoto has to say, i would check if win2003 sp2 is installed and if so check if tcp chimney is enabled if enabled disable the same as this has been causing memory issues and network slow down issues.

refer to this article for further clarifications on why to change the tcp chimney settings.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;945977

bhanu

Hello again. Thanks for the answers.

Just for kicks, I decided to plug the enclosures up tp a old desktop grade server to see what sort of throughput I could achieve. I was able to complete most jobs between 1200 and 1500MB/Min. Obviously, this is a drastic difference in speed form 200MB/Min. The new server has Windows 2003 R2, as well as the old server. The NIC drivers are the latest, as well as all updates across the board for all software on the machine. Obviously, the network is perfoming well or else I would not get the increased speed through the old server.

Both servers are plugged into the same switch and all network connection settings have been confimed to be properly setup.  This is really odd. Does anyone have any initial ideas with the current information I have provided?

Thanks all.

Also, to add to this scenario, the new server which is running so slow is a DC. As a back drop, I just started this position last week. I have inherited the entire setup, so any issues that may be found will be from previous setup from the previous IT person who filled this role. I am in the position now, and I have been told that I can change ANYTHING I need to in order to get the network in tip-top shape. That is kind of unique given the size of this company :)

Thanks again.

Is the slow machine also the media server?

No. This is an old server which used to be the original backup server. Backup Exec 12 was installed to test with, and it appears to be running much faster than the new one. However, I just noticed that it is running 32-bit W2k3 R2 and the new server is running 64-bit R2. I am leaning towards it being a driver issue of some sort related to the architecture.

Thanks