On 3/30/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Rees wrote: > > How long are full and incremental backups taking now? > > In one machine it went down from 900 minutes to 175 minutes. I expect better > performance > when more memory is added (today or tomorrow they will add it) and I dont > think all > files had checksums cached when this full was ran.
Wow, that is a huge difference! I didn't expect performance to increase that much, apparently the checksum caching is really reducing the number of disk IOPs. > I could try tar for testing purposes if you like? I think rsync will be > sufficiently > fast enough. I am guessing that with checksum-seeds the difference shouldnt > be so > much > tar probably transfers much more data in full backups? Rsync can be faster > perhaps if > ignore-times was removed when taking full backups. I am thinking of removing > ignore-times > option from full backups with rsync and see how much it effects for seeing > the difference. Tar is definitely worth a shot if it's short comings for incremental backups are acceptable and network bandwidth isn't an issue. Removing rsync ignore-times may also be an option if the reduction in possible data integrity is acceptible. -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/
