Brendan Simon wrote: > David Rees wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 2007 5:05 PM, Brendan Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> So is the bottleneck rsync or the number of files or memory ??? >>> >>> >> In this case, it's neither the number of files or memory. >> >> If you look at top in this particular case, the backup is complete CPU >> bound, with ~70% CPU being used by BackupPC and ~30% CPU being used by >> ssh. >> >> The machine isn't swapping, and isn't waiting on disk. >> >> The only way you're going to go faster is to get more CPU power. >> >> > > OK, that makes sense. Thanks. > > But Windows machines still backup faster using SMB. > So maybe if I use NFS, or try no cipher with SSH, or even SMB, might > help reduce the server CPU load. > Rsync is running on the host, not the server, so that should have no > impact on the CPU of the server, right? > > Thanks again for all the help :) > Brendan. > > Based o nthe data you gave earlier the windows machine has a much larger average file size meaning the number of new file create/link to pool operations is much lower than with the linux box. It turn out that backing up 100 1MB files is much faster than backing up 100000 1kB files no matter what the host OS or transport.
John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
