reiserfs will certainly help a lot with the hardlink and directorie creation
and deletion. claims about reiserfs tend to be greatly exagerated but this
is a true strength of it and would will see a really remarkable performance
improvement for these specific operations. i don't believe that xfs will
net any significant inprovement. xfs is better at handling small files
quickly than ext3 but not significantly in real world situations.
no filesystem will handle those disk seeks any better because that is a
physical operation and no defrag software will ever be able to keep up.
your BEST option is to increase spindle speed. a 15k rpm drive will do
wonders as seek operations scale almost perfectly linearly.
I suggest you try reiserfs and see how it treats you. running linux, you
dont really have any other options other than ext3, reiserfs, or xfs. zfs
is very very good at small files and hardlink operations but would need to
run on fuse on linux and you would likely see a net decrease in performance
because of the un-tuned fuse zfs code.
in my tests, zfs is really the best filesystem for backuppc but you will
need to run *solaris or freebsd current to use it effectively. this mailing
list seems to be dominated by linux users but freebsd is a great server OS
and is a great choice for backuppc PLUS you get ZFS. UFS in bsd or solaris
is also pretty good but it is a little slower than ext3 for small disk ops
such as directory creation and file deletion.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 6:03 PM, David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't scale very well in terms of performance - you
> > may see this thread on linux-fsdevel list for more info:
> > http://marc.info/?t=120333985100003&r=2&w=4
>
> What version of BackupPC? 3.1.0 does the inode sorting in the nightly
> process as described in the thread if you have IO::Dirent installed
> (check that's installed, too).
>
> > The main problem seems to be hard disk seeks caused by a great amount
> of
> > hardlinks. I.e., removing anything from the drive takes ages.
>
> The only way you can really reduce the cost of all these seeks (unless
> you can find a filesystem better than ext3 which handles this type of
> situation better) is to try to limit head movement on the spindles.
> This would mean partitioning your disks and using a smaller portion of
> the disk for the BackupPC data partition. Or adding more spindles with
> higher rotation speeds and lower seek latencies.
>
> I did find it odd that you said after dropping the caches deletes ran
> fairly quickly for a while, then slowed down. This seems to point to
> some sort of kernel bug.
>
> Some people have said that perhaps reiserfs or xfs may perform better
> than ext3 for this type of workload, but I don't know of any real
> benchmarks made with a BackupPC type workload which is fairly unusual.
>
> I assume that you've already mounted the filesystem with noatime?
>
> -Dave
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
