On 3/27/07, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you try mounting the backup partition async so we can see if it > really is read performance or write performance that is killing backup > performance? > > I must wonder if ufs2 is really bad at storing inodes on disk...
I went and did some research on ufs filesystem performance and found this paper: http://www.bsdcan.org/2006/papers/FilesystemPerformance.pdf There appears to be 4 different mount options related to data integrity: sync: slowest, all writes synchronous noasync: (default?) data asynchronous, metadata synchronous soft updates: dependency ordering of writes to ensure on-disk consistency async: fastest, all writes asynchronous noasync seems to be the default. Evran, can you confirm that your filesystem is mounted this way? On Linux using ext3, the default mount option is "data=ordered" which should be similar to soft updates in terms of performance. If you can mount your backup partition in "soft updates" mode that should perform best, much better than the default noasync mode for the type of writes BackupPC does. I wouldn't recommend mounting a partition async permanently because of the risk to file system integrity. -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 BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
