Evren Yurtesen wrote:
I am saying that it is slow. I am not complaining that it is crap. I
think when something is really slow, I should have right to say it right?
There is such a thing as tact. Many capable and friendly people have
been patient with you, and you fail to show any form of respect. You're
the one with the busted system; you should be nicer to the important
people who are giving you their experience for free.
I disagree, I have given all the information requested from me. I have
tried different things like mounting filesystems with async even though
I know that it is not the problem just to make you guys happy. Now you
say that my attitude is not helping the resolution? What makes you say so?
If you read the way you write, you're argumentative, combative, and
rude. You have not been forthcoming in describing your situation, which
wastes a lot of time and energy that is "free" to you, but not free to
the rest of us trying to help you. In short, you're taking advantage of
a friendly group of people, and show no gratitude whatsoever. In fact,
you act as if you blame us for setting up the same software and being
satisfied with its performance. It's very acceptable in my experience.
Other people have been using it with dual-processor systems with 2-3GB
of memory and raid setups. I would hardly consider this 'similar'
conditions. BackupPC is very inefficent at handling files so you guys
have to use very fast hardware solutions to speed it up. So you are
covering up the problem from another side and say that there is no problem.
I have told you several times that I get considerably better performance
with a single slow 5400 rpm 2mb buffer IDE drive on a 450mhz P3. The
hardware is *NOT* as big a factor as you make it out to be.
3) Disk utilisation/bandwidth on both client and server
I have sent this information also. I didnt send it on client actually
but server is almost idle diskwise. The main disk load is on the server.
How do you know your clients aren't the bottleneck, then? What if
they're set up in PIO mode? Or are swapping like mad? You need to
diagnose the problem on both ends.
4) Network utilisation/bandwidth on both client and server
The network links are idle. I can send this information if you dont
believe me but there is maybe 200-300kbits/sec other usage while taking
backups.
Have you checked with ttcp that your network is configured properly, and
you can get the speeds you expect? A misconfigured switch or multiple
MACs associated with the same IP can do a lot of damage to performance
through collisions. Same with improper cabling from the IDE controller
to the drive. Same with badly set jumpers if both drives are on the
same IDE port. There are many problems that could exist. You need to
measure the device's raw performance, then measure the protocol on that
device to /dev/nul, then over the network to server's /dev/nul, then to
the server's hard drive. Then check out your Perl install and make sure
you haven't got something going on there.
There are a hundred things you could try. Don't wait for us to come up
with them all.
JH
JH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
