Re: [Bacula-users] backup extrem slow after upgrade
>John Drescher wrote: > > > Are you sure that the new database is indexed properly? Does it take > > an unreasonably long time to generate the file list for a restore? If > > so this is a sign that the database needs indexed. > > The restore time is quite ok. It's the backup that takes extremely long. Hi, I've got exactly the same problem over here. I'm using Bacula 1.38.11 under Ubuntu Dapper and the Win32 client 1.38.10 - and the Backups take extremely long, the throughput ist really low. And I did some tests - it doesn't matter if you enable or disable VSS or use compression. schlenz - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] backup extrem slow after upgrade
John Drescher wrote: > Are you sure that the new database is indexed properly? Does it take > an unreasonably long time to generate the file list for a restore? If > so this is a sign that the database needs indexed. The restore time is quite ok. It's the backup that takes extremely long. /m - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] backup extrem slow after upgrade
On 8/26/06, Marco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just to add more probably relevant info: > > The backup medium is an external USB 2.0 disk. It has not changed in the > time between the high performance with version 1.38.5 and the low > performance with the current version 1.38.11. > > The DB is sqlite which served well form months before. I had to create it > new because the new version did not start because of an DB version > conflict. > Are you sure that the new database is indexed properly? Does it take an unreasonably long time to generate the file list for a restore? If so this is a sign that the database needs indexed. John - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] backup extrem slow after upgrade
Just to add more probably relevant info: The backup medium is an external USB 2.0 disk. It has not changed in the time between the high performance with version 1.38.5 and the low performance with the current version 1.38.11. The DB is sqlite which served well form months before. I had to create it new because the new version did not start because of an DB version conflict. /m - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] backup extrem slow after upgrade
Marco wrote: I found out more: The server internal backup took more than 12 hours (585 KB/s). Before the upgrade it was less than 2 hours (4000 KB/s). During the backup of the client I notice the there is only sporadic short transfer phases from client to server. Between the transfer there are gaps of about ten seconds. But there was one phase of transfer which took several minutes. >From that I think the gaps are between the transfer of single files or file bundles. I have one file of 4GB on the client which would account for 90% of the whole transfer of the backup job cancel after one hour. I think the full performance phase was for transferring that file. I hope you have an idea what is wrong here and can help me to solve it. I have never done such a downgrade. Were would I fine packages for Ubuntu and Debian of version 1.38.5? /m - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
