Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula performance

[Uwe Hees]

Hello, Am 30.08.2005 um 18:15 schrieb Kern Sibbald: Perhaps you didn't read the ReleaseNotes where I indicate that SQLite3 in my  tests was 4 to 10 times slower than SQLite 2.   Try SQLite 2 or MySQL. I used sqlite3 mainly because it came preinstalled with MacOS 10.4. Meanwhile I have installed MySQL for other reasons and tried bacula with it. The result was a double in performance up to ~120kB/sec. While running the backup job I noticed that "netstat" reported 32768 entries in the send queue of the bacula-fd. I tried to backup to a remote sd (running under Linux on a 200Mhz/PPC603e, i.e. not a powerful box) and got ~520kB/sec.     Am 30.08.2005 um 20:46 schrieb Arno Lehmann: Also, don't forget that notebook HDs (2.5") are usually a lot slower than than desktop or even server disks... and in backing up the same machine, you use the slow disk three times: reading, writing, database. The disk has a random read/write performance of about 10 MB/sec. Now, I don't have disk performance comparisons between an iBook and a more typical server setup, but I'd bet that the iBook is really slow in comparison... about 650 kB/s is what I get storing the (dumped) catalog database on my backupserver - the server is slower than your iBook, but still this is what the tape drive can handle - but this server only does the backups, the catalog is on another machine, and there are no other processes using lots of memory or bus throughput. In short: Try it with a setup which resembles your planned use of bacula, and with some consideration you will get good results. Backing up my (and my wife's) notebook to an external disk is exactly what I intend to do at home. There's no tape drive involved. As for the company, the backup tape drive is not yet purchased. Greetings, Uwe