Evren Yurtesen wrote: > > > I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk to > take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a time(if I > am not remembering wrong). > > I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to some > extent but the real solution is to change backuppc in such way that it > wont use so much disk operations. > >
From what I can tell the issue is that each file requires a hard link - depending on your file system metadata like directory entries, had links etc get treated differently that regular data - on a BSD ufs2 system metadata updates are typically synchronous, that is the system doesn't return until the write has made it to the disk. This is good for reliability but really bad for performance since it prevents out of order writes which can save a lot of disk activity. Changing backuppc would be decidedly non-trivial - eyeballing it to hack in a real database to store the relationship between pool and individual files would touch almost just about every part of the system. What filesystem are you using and have you turned off atime - I found that makes a big difference. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
