On 1/9/07, Timothy J. Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, it seems to me that the culprit is rsync. I think the reason my > production backup servers are usually at 100% CPU utilization is that > they're backing up reasonably high-performance file servers that have > enough CPU power to max out my backup server. It will be interesting to > see how much CPU load is put on the target of Machine 1: I will check > tonight. > > I guess the best way to improve this would be to avoid rsync... > However, I like rsyncd. I never realized how heavy the overhead is with > rsync, though. Unless I'm missing something?
As Lee mentioned, rsync is fairly CPU intensive on both the server and client side. rsync's primary advantages are reducing network utilization by avoiding transfers of files which already exist on the server. If the data being backed up changes frequently or you have a fast network, it can be beneficial to use tar or smb backup methods instead of rsync. Naturally, which one performs best for your workload and network/hardware capabilities is something you will have to test. BTW, if you are using rsync, be sure to have the checksum-seed options turned on. That will help reduce IO/CPU costs on both the client/server after the 3rd full backup. -Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
