Hi there Friday, June 15, 2018, 3:06:30 PM, you wrote:
BB> It finally finished after 24 hours. That gives about 13G/hour or about BB> 3.8M/s. BB> The CPUs were not busy. That's what I was confused about. I would have BB> expected to see a bottleneck at some point, but nothing seemed to be BB> busy. The CPUs were all at or below 20% and iowait was close to 0 most BB> of the time. I'm not sure how I would determine if the loopback was BB> saturated. what file system are you using? I am operating a mailserver on a dedicated machine. There are some millions of small files on that machine, so the situation is comparable to yours. When I set up that machine some years ago, I compared various file systems. Surprisingly, ext4 came out as winner to handle these small files. I am just using ext4 on top of the hardware, no lvm on that machine. And of course having a lot of RAM may also speed up your machine, because the server can read ahead data. I think it may be a matter of tuning that server to get better performance. https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt may give some hints on read ahead tuning. best regards --- Michael Schumacher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/
