> On 2018, Jun 15, at 9:06 AM, Bowie Bailey <bowie_bai...@buc.com> wrote:
>
> The CPUs were not busy. That's what I was confused about. I would have
> expected to see a bottleneck at some point, but nothing seemed to be
> busy. The CPUs were all at or below 20% and iowait was close to 0 most
> of the time. I'm not sure how I would determine if the loopback was
> saturated.
20% loaded with 6 or more cores would be a single thread running full speed on
one core. A single task may not stay on one core, it may get moved around
enough that it doesn't appear that any of the cores are heavily loaded. Doubly
true if you have hyperthreading which causes additional CPU shuffling.
I think you ran into single thread compression performance, plus any of the
normal process, network, and IO latency that would compound with everything
being on one machine. That sounds about right to me. First backups are slow.
SSH probably wouldn't have made any difference at that speed.
ED.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
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/
