On 9/15/2010 4:22 PM, George Adams wrote: > > Thanks for the replies, Kenneth and Les. Kenneth, do you find that SMB is > faster than rsync for backing up Windows boxes? > > Les, that' not good news if 2-3 hour incremental backups and 7 hour full > backups are par for the course. Is the slowdown due to the network-transfer > time, or is some kind of checksum being run on every single one of the > 21,000+ files, even during an incremental backup? If so, why isn't the > "--checksum-seed=32761" option making any difference?
On the full runs, the client side has to read every file and compute the checksum. The caching only applies to the server side and it only starts working after the 2nd full including the file. On the incrementals, it should only have to read the complete directory, transfer that, then transfer the changes. That seems slow unless you have substantial changes since the previous full run. But as I mentioned, be sure the server has enough RAM to hold the directory. > Thanks. It'd be nice if I could setup some blackout times for this Windows > PC, but unfortunately it gets turned on in the morning, used sporadically > (but consistently) during the day, then turned off at night. Perhaps you could start a run manually when going to lunch or some other known slack time. Or maybe the bulk of files could be moved to an always-on server and mapped back to this machine for access. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ 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/