Cassiano Surek wrote on 11/22/2012 05:43:30 AM:
> Dear all,
>
> For reference on the matter I was trying to resolve or improve, I
> have increased RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb (the max for that machine) and
> backups reduced by 50% in completion time.
>
> I had wrongly assessed in the past that it was
On 11/22/2012 5:43 AM, Cassiano Surek wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> For reference on the matter I was trying to resolve or improve, I have
> increased RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb (the max for that machine) and backups
> reduced by 50% in completion time.
>
> I had wrongly assessed in the past that it was taking
Dear all,
For reference on the matter I was trying to resolve or improve, I have
increased RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb (the max for that machine) and backups reduced by
50% in completion time.
I had wrongly assessed in the past that it was taking 10 days to complete a
full backup, when it actually too
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Timothy J Massey wrote:
>
> Cassiano Surek wrote on 11/06/2012 05:03:44 AM:
>
>
> > Of course, how could I have missed that! I did find it now, thanks Michał.
> >
> > Last full backup (of 100 odd Gb) took slightly north of 10 days to
> > complete. Incremental, jus
On 7 November 2012 16:42, Timothy J Massey wrote:
>
> For some more numbers: I have a file server with 700GB of data in 400,000
> files that takes about 5 hours for an incremental, and about 13 hours for a
> full. I have another server that is 3,000GB (3TB) big with 1.4 Million
> files and it t
Cassiano Surek wrote on 11/06/2012 05:03:44 AM:
> Of course, how could I have missed that! I did find it now, thanks
Michał.
>
> Last full backup (of 100 odd Gb) took slightly north of 10 days to
> complete. Incremental, just over 5 days.
I did not see if you mentioned how *many* files you ha
> Hi Michael, thanks for answering.
>
>>
>> On a full, it looks like my systems generally get around 6Mb/s, and
>> closer
>> to 1Mb/s on an incremental -- comparing the files may not take a lot of
>> bandwidth, but it does take resources on both sides, so what you're
>> seeing
>> may be normal fo
On 5 Nov 2012, at 19:02, Cassiano Surek wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is my first post to the list, so please be gentle. :)
>
> I have been running a backuppc server for a while, but recently it has been
> running way too slow to be useful.
>
> Bearing in mind that every situation is different
Hi Cassiano
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:03:44 +
Cassiano Surek wrote:
> Of course, how could I have missed that! I did find it now, thanks
> Michał.
>
> Last full backup (of 100 odd Gb) took slightly north of 10 days to
> complete. Incremental, just over 5 days.
That seems rather slow. I have Ba
Of course, how could I have missed that! I did find it now, thanks Michał.
Last full backup (of 100 odd Gb) took slightly north of 10 days to complete.
Incremental, just over 5 days.
On 6 Nov 2012, at 09:58, Michał Sawicz wrote:
> W dniu 06.11.2012 10:43, Cassiano Surek pisze:
>> That indeed ma
Hi Michael, thanks for answering.
>
> On a full, it looks like my systems generally get around 6Mb/s, and closer
> to 1Mb/s on an incremental -- comparing the files may not take a lot of
> bandwidth, but it does take resources on both sides, so what you're seeing
> may be normal for an incrementa
You make a valid point. I will add more to it, likely raising things to 8Gb.
Many thanks for your attention.
On 5 Nov 2012, at 21:30, Jeff Folsom wrote:
> If your backups are slow, it seems that 2GB of RAM might be insufficient for
> rsync to perform optimally.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:
On 5 Nov 2012, at 20:15, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>
> Both are connected to the same switch at the data centre using gigabit
> interfaces.
>
> This yields:
>
> Backup size: 105.58 Gb (yep, it is quite big)
> Speed: 0.29 Mb/s
>
> I believe the above is horrifically slow, but would welcome your
If your backups are slow, it seems that 2GB of RAM might be insufficient
for rsync to perform optimally.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Cassiano Surek wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This is my first post to the list, so please be gentle. :)
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Cassiano Surek wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is my first post to the list, so please be gentle. :)
>
> I have been running a backuppc server for a while, but recently it has
> been running way too slow to be useful.
>
Mike is the guru here but I'll do my best to an
> Hello all,
>
> This is my first post to the list, so please be gentle. :)
>
> I have been running a backuppc server for a while, but recently it has
> been running way too slow to be useful.
>
> Bearing in mind that every situation is different, it would be beneficial
> to compare the performan
Hello all,
This is my first post to the list, so please be gentle. :)
I have been running a backuppc server for a while, but recently it has been
running way too slow to be useful.
Bearing in mind that every situation is different, it would be beneficial to
compare the performance of my setup
17 matches
Mail list logo
