Les Mikesell wrote: > Evren Yurtesen wrote: > >> # Type #Files Size/MB MB/sec #Files Size/MB #Files Size/MB >> 245 full 152228 2095.2 0.06 152177 2076.9 108 18.3 > >> On Linux with raid setup with async io etc. people are getting >> slightly better results. I think ufs2 is just fine. I wonder if there >> is something in my explanations...The problem is backuppc. People are >> getting ~2mbytes/sec(was it 2 or 5?) speed with raid5 and 5 drives, >> using Linux. It is a miracle that backup even finishes in 24 hours >> using a standart ide drive. > > 2MB/sec isn't bad when handling a lot of files (try unpacking a tar with > hundreds of thousands of little files to see). The problem is that you
Yes it is terrible. I get much better performance if I do the tar option with the same files. As a matter of fact I was using a smaller script for taking backups earlier. (which I still use on some servers) and transfer files over NFS. It works way faster, especially incremental backups take 5-10 minutes compared to 400 minutes with backuppc > are getting .06 on a drive that is capable of running a couple of > sessions at 1.5MB/sec or so. I'd try to get up to normal speed before > claiming that the software needs to be fixed to get more. More RAM will > probably make a huge difference, but first are you sure that your IDE > controller and cable are a match for the drive and that your OS is using > an efficient DMA mode? I've seen even some of the 80-pin cables have a > problem that would make things shift down to 33Mhz pio mode which will > kill you. Does freebsd log the IDE mode detected and have some way to > test throughput? ad2: 238475MB <ST3250824A/3.AAH> [484521/16/63] at ata1-master UDMA100 DMA is working just fine. You are omitting the fact that 2mb/sec is very bad for a raid setup. I agree, handling a lot of files might be slow but this depends on how you handle the files. But I was handling the same files before and it wasnt taking this long. >>> BTW, how does BackupPC calculate speed? I think it calculates backup >>> speed by reporting files transferred over time, so if you don't have >>> many files that change, won't BackupPC report a very low backup speed. >> >> This is like the 'Contact' movie. The sphere took 30 seconds to >> download but there were 18 hours of recording. If what you said was >> true and backuppc would be backing up very small amount of files and >> skipping most, then backups would probably take less time than 2-4 >> hours each. > > If you look at the 'duration' in the backup summary and the Size/MB in > the lower File Size summary you can compute your own rate based on what > you are backing up. For fulls at least this seems to be based on the > real target size, not what rsync had to transfer. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
