> I'm backing up 2 servers with Bacula, one with Windows 2016, the other > one with CentOS. The hardware is described below. The Windows server is > much more powerful than the Linux server in all respects, and should > theoretically deliver data to the Bacula server at a much higher rate. > But in reality, the Linux server delivers data about 7 times faster over > the network, than the Windows server.
It's very hard to say, because many small files will take longer to transfer than a couple of large ones, and if there is other machine activity reading or writing from the disk at the time then this can sometimes slow the transfer speed dramatically, at least with magnetic disks. You could try to create a large file on both machines, say 10-20GB, and then try to back up just that one file. This should eliminate one variable (many vs few files) and give you a better idea how different the machines are. Perhaps you could also run some disk speed tests locally on each machine. Linux has hdparm included in most distros, but I'm not sure of a Windows equivalent although I'm sure there are many out there. Because you only have a single average transfer speed for the Windows machine, it's conceivable that a failing disk will work fine for a while but then become stuck on a few sectors and sit there for even a few minutes retrying the read operation before continuing. This could result in a slow overall transfer rate but a fast speed test, if the speed test doesn't read any of the failing data areas. If the speed test comes back good, then it might be worth trying to find some SMART tools for your disk/controller which can usually query the drives for the number of errors they've been encountering recently. If those are high for one drive then that could explain what's going on. Cheers, Adam. _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
