On 4/29/26 11:05, Andrew Watkins wrote:
Arno,
Well I finally spotted the difference between the new and old systems.
I said the old server was doing compression, but IT WAS NOT! So, as
soon as I switch off compression on the new server I get better
performance.
Rate: 84648.1 KB/s
Software Compression: None
Comm Line Compression: 13.4% 1.2:1
I didn't spot it since the configuration files are the same and I used
the same build setup on both platforms. For some reason the old
Solaris server didn't set the compression on any client (clients have
not been altered, except for passwords!). I don't see why since libz
is available.
So, I have good speeds now with NO compression, but I will look into
later why GZIP (haven't tested LZO yet) really hits performance
(Solaris client CPU is 95% idle during backup, so not a CPU problem.)
Gzip in Bacula is single-threaded and operates on quite small block
sizes. Look for a single core being slammed, even though the overall CPU
utilization for all cores might be low. If compression is needed to
decrease storage needs, then put the backup volumes on ZFS (or for tape
just use the tape drive's hardware compression) and leave Bacula
compression off.
Anyway, for now thanks,
Andrew
On 4/23/2026 3:25 PM, Arno Lehmann via Bacula-users wrote:
Hi Andrew,
just a very quick suggestion for now -- you could try disabling
transport encryption and compression and see if you get better
throughput.
And one question about the change: Have you touched the client on the
Solaris host or the configuration (beyond changing credentials for
the DIR)?
The reason I ask is that, as far as I recall, the openSSL and
possibly compression libraries on Solaris may be just slow compared
to other platforms.
'status client=<the-solaris-host-fd>' should give a bit of
information about the client build in the header, and that may become
interesting when we try to find out if the FD is potentially
problematic.
Cheers,
Arno
Am 23.04.2026 um 13:28 schrieb Andrew Watkins:
Hello,
Have a strange one here. I have moved to a new Bacula Server and the
read performance for a Solaris client is 3 times as bad.
All other clients (Windows, Linux) are good.
Old setup:
Solaris Bacula 13.04 Server (slow disks for spooling) LTO5 when
backing up a Solaris file server I get:
iostat gives me about 100Ms
Bacula Backup report gives me ~ 54,664.4 KB/s
New Setup:
Ubuntu Bacula 13.04 Server (Fast disks for spooling) LTO9 when
backup up save Solaris file server I get:
iostat gives me about 30Ms
Bacula Backup report gives me ~4,661.3 KB/s
But other clients Windows & linux are report good rates.
The conf files are near enough the same, so any ideas why Solaris is
so slow when backup up to a Linux server?
Thanks,
Andrew
--
*****************************************************
***** Support Request [email protected] *****
*****************************************************
* Andrew Watkins *
* Birkbeck, University of London *
* Computing and Mathematical Sciences *
*https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fnotallmicrosoft.blogspot.com&c=E,1,ciyP5u8kQDn-3n1M4lyEC8NXTbHxpJJPqFHVwaSuB0nBvL0meeOunhGJSyiB7XGA7SgCcKpcNE0ZJCYdLWDtlKWoDcaPGj1PgnYzPba9re8NrNfSD6i7ldU,&typo=1
*
*****************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
--
*****************************************************
***** Support Request [email protected] *****
*****************************************************
* Andrew Watkins *
* Birkbeck, University of London *
* Computing and Mathematical Sciences *
*http://notallmicrosoft.blogspot.com *
*****************************************************
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
