David Rees wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Lets hope this doesnt wrap around... as you can see load is in 0.1-0.01
>> range.
>>
>> 1 usersLoad 0.12 0.05 0.01 Mar 27 07:30
>>
>> Mem:KBREALVIRTUAL
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets hope this doesnt wrap around... as you can see load is in 0.1-0.01
> range.
>
> 1 usersLoad 0.12 0.05 0.01 Mar 27 07:30
>
> Mem:KBREALVIRTUAL VN PAGER SWAP PAGER
>
Jesse Proudman wrote:
> I've got one customer who's server has taken 3600 minutes to
> backup. 77 Gigs of Data. 1,972,859 small files. Would tar be
> better or make this faster? It's directly connected via 100 Mbit to
> the backup box.
If the files don't change frequently, tar increment
Winston writes:
> I had been running BackupPC on an Ubuntu computer for several months to
> back the computer to a spare hard drive without problem. About the time
> I added a new host (Windows XP computer using Samba), I started getting
> the following behavior:
>
> BackupPC backs both hosts pro
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
> There are 4 hosts that have been backed up, for a total of:
>
> * 16 full backups of total size 72.16GB (prior to pooling and
> compression),
> * 24 incr backups of total size 13.45GB (prior to pooling and
> compression).
>
>
> # Pool is 17.08GB comprising 76
Jason Hughes wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
>> Jason Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> That drive should be more than adequate. Mine is a 5400rpm 2mb
>>> buffer clunker. Works fine.
>>> Are you running anything else on the backup server, besides
>>> BackupPC? What OS? What filesystem? How many
Evren writes:
> Host User#Full Full Age (days) Full Size (GB)
> Speed
> (MB/s) #Incr Incr Age (days) Last Backup (days)
> State
> Last attempt
> host1 4 5.4 3.880.226 0.4
Jesse Proudman wrote:
> I've got one customer who's server has taken 3600 minutes to
> backup. 77 Gigs of Data. 1,972,859 small files. Would tar be
> better or make this faster? It's directly connected via 100 Mbit to
> the backup box.
>
>
First, determine your bottleneck. Is it dis
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> Jason Hughes wrote:
>> That drive should be more than adequate. Mine is a 5400rpm 2mb
>> buffer clunker. Works fine.
>> Are you running anything else on the backup server, besides
>> BackupPC? What OS? What filesystem? How many files total?
>
> FreeBSD, UFS2+softupd
David Rees wrote:
> Let's start at the beginning:
>
> On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
>> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
>> the mailing list and it is mentioned t
David Rees wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger
>>> buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow
>>> rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse
>>> seek
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
>>> If your filesystem isn't a good place to store files, there is not
>>> much an application can do about it. Perhaps it would help if you
>>> mentioned what kind of scale you are attempting with what server
>>> hardware. I know there are some p
I've got one customer who's server has taken 3600 minutes to
backup. 77 Gigs of Data. 1,972,859 small files. Would tar be
better or make this faster? It's directly connected via 100 Mbit to
the backup box.
--
Jesse Proudman, Blue Box Group, LLC
---
Jason Hughes wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>> And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger
>>> buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow
>>> rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse
>>> seek performance.
>>
>> Well thi
I had been running BackupPC on an Ubuntu computer for several months to
back the computer to a spare hard drive without problem. About the time
I added a new host (Windows XP computer using Samba), I started getting
the following behavior:
BackupPC backs both hosts properly onto the spare hard dri
> is 3.0 yet apt-getable?
Don't know, I always install from source.
-Dave
Yes, it is. It is only in unstable though, so you'll need to specify that
apt-get use the unstable repositories to get version 3.0.
Peace,
Jim
-
On 3/20/07, Henrik Genssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are there any issues upgrading from 2.1.2.pl1?
None that I know of. The upgrade process is pretty smooth. (though I
opted to convert to the new configuration file layout at the same time
which does take a bit of tweaking).
> is 3.0 yet apt-g
Let's start at the beginning:
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
> the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening becau
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger
> > buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow
> > rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse
> > seek performance.
>
> Wel
On 3/26/07, Bernhard Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is true that BackupPC is great, however backuppc is slow because it
> > is trying to make backup of a single instance of each file to save
> > space. Now we are wasting (perhaps even more?) space to make it fast
> > when we do raid1.
>
> Yo
John Pettitt wrote:
> Changing backuppc would be decidedly non-trivial - eyeballing it to hack
> in a real database to store the relationship between pool and individual
> files would touch almost just about every part of the system.
And there's not much reason to think that a database could do
John Hannfield wrote:
> Hello
>
> I've just installed BackupPC and love it. It's really great, and
> great to see an open source application which competes with
> similar enterprise level products.
>
> I only need to backup Linux servers with rsync over SSH, and have set
> up a test deployement o
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> If your filesystem isn't a good place to store files, there is not much
>> an application can do about it. Perhaps it would help if you mentioned
>> what kind of scale you are attempting with what server hardware. I know
>> there are some people on the list handling w
Use Rsyncd. It runs as a service on each client box as root (or some
other user with appropriate disk privileges), and the backuppc client
gains no user privileges on the client box, rather it communicates to
retrieve data. There is no real client push model for BackupPC, only
protocols with l
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger
>> buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow
>> rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse
>> seek performance.
>
> Well this is a seagate barracuda 720
Hello
I've just installed BackupPC and love it. It's really great, and
great to see an open source application which competes with
similar enterprise level products.
I only need to backup Linux servers with rsync over SSH, and have set
up a test deployement of BackupPC as described in the docs. B
John Pettitt wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk
>> to take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a
>> time(if I am not remembering wrong).
>>
>> I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to
Jason Hughes wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk
>> to take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a
>> time(if I am not remembering wrong).
>>
>> I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to some
Original Message
Subject: Re:[BackupPC-users] very slow backup speed
From: Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26.03.2007 23:37
> David Rees wrote:
>
>
> It is true that BackupPC is great, however backuppc is slow because it
> is trying
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>
>
> I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk to
> take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a time(if I
> am not remembering wrong).
>
> I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to some
> extent but the real
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk to
> take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a time(if I
> am not remembering wrong).
>
> I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to some
> extent but the real solu
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> John Pettitt wrote:
>>> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to
disk
bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
the mailing list and it is mentioned that
David Rees wrote:
> BackupPC is the best. Most backups complete in a reasonable time,
> those that don't are backups which are either very large (lots of
> bandwidth) or have lots of files. My backup server is a simple Athlon
> XP 2000+ with a RAID1 consisting of 2 Seagate 250GB 7200rpm ATA
> driv
On 3/26/07, Evren Yurtesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Pettitt wrote:
> > The basic problem is backuppc is using the file system as a database -
> > specifically using the hard link capability to store multiple references
> > to an object and the link count to manage garbage collection. Man
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> John Pettitt wrote:
>> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>>> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
>>> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
>>> the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening because of
>>>
John Pettitt wrote:
> Evren Yurtesen wrote:
>> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
>> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
>> the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening because of
>> too many hard links.
>>
>>
Evren Yurtesen wrote:
> I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
> bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
> the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening because of
> too many hard links.
>
>
[snip]
The basic problem i
I am using backuppc but it is extremely slow. I narrowed it down to disk
bottleneck. (ad2 being the backup disk). Also checked the archives of
the mailing list and it is mentioned that this is happening because of
too many hard links.
Disks ad0 ad2
KB/t 4.00 25.50
tps 175
MB/s 0.
* On Sunday 25 March 2007 15:18, "Krsnendu dasa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It is hard to find files in the backups by browsing. If there were a
>search feature that allowed you to search one or more computers
>backups that would be great.
I know this isn't a "real solution" per se, but if you
39 matches
Mail list logo
