; cc
> backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Les Mikesell" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet
> Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting compression level
>
>
>
>
> the video and mp3 files should see virtually zero compressi
t;, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet
Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting compression level
the video and mp3 files should see virtually zero compression but exe
files should do a little and the excel and word doc files should be about
1/2 the size.
so strange.
what is your operating system and version
ICHARD/Mondeville/VIC/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet
Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting compression level
the video and mp3 files should see virtually zero compression but exe
fi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I installed BackupPC 3.0.0 on a Fedora Core 6 (server) in order to
> back up Windows XP client.
> For your information, I use rsyncd.
>
> I'm checking and testing all differents compression levels to compare
> them.
> The test is based on 3.00 Gb in full ba
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for your answer.
>
> I checked the type of compression in the config.pl and it's Gzip (
> $Conf{ArchiveComp}='gzip'; ).
> I wiil continue with levels 7, 8 and 9 to see the difference.
>
> Yes I've got several types of files, mp3, videos, .doc, .xls, .ra
e/VIC/[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet
> Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting compression level
>
>
>
>
> something is fishy about your compression %. you should definitely get
> more compression. in the co
, etc
Thank you.
Romain
dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20/11/2007 17:08
A
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
Romain PICHARD/Mondeville/VIC/[EMAIL PROTECTED],
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet
Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting
something is fishy about your compression %. you should definitely get more
compression. in the config file, what type of compression are you using?
you should see much great compression ratios and you should see some
staggering compression times with the level 8 and 9 compression levels.
somethi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I installed BackupPC 3.0.0 on a Fedora Core 6 (server) in order to back
> up Windows XP client.
> For your information, I use rsyncd.
>
> I'm checking and testing all differents compression levels to compare them.
> The test is based on 3.00 Gb in full ba
at my tests are " normal " ?
Thanks for your help.
Have a nice day.
Romain
Holger Parplies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé par : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
15/11/2007 11:24
A
dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Objet
Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting comp
Hi,
dan wrote on 14.11.2007 at 22:17:46 [Re: [BackupPC-users] adjusting compression
level]:
> actually, i would consider it some level of bug that SMB can beat
> rsync in certain tasks in backuppc.
I think the thing you're misunderstanding is that SMB has a higher transfer
rate simp
yes! i have noticed that the compression does hit performance a lot.
I have a windows2003 server that im backing up to an ubuntu backuppc
server accross gigabit using rsyncd. I notice that the transfer rate
with compression turned on is not much more than that of 100Mb
ethernet(maybe 12Mb/s or s
actually, i would consider it some level of bug that SMB can beat
rsync in certain tasks in backuppc.
In reality, the only point at which rsync would be any slower than SMB
would be during the initial scan for changed files, which SMB wouldnt
be doing and would rely on the program that is doing th
Interesting point you make about rsyncd vs. smb transfer rates. I would
have never guessed smb to be better at anything. I'm still going rsyncd on
everything, since it's better at dealing with in-use files, etc. It just
seems rsyncd is all around more robust.
It would be nice if the compression
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Michael Barrow wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Gene Horodecki wrote:
Hi there.. I just did my first big backup with backuppc and to be
honest the results were alittle dissapointing.. It's taken 6 hours
now at approximately 80% CPU to back up my 70Gb phot
On Nov 14, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Gene Horodecki wrote:
Hi there.. I just did my first big backup with backuppc and to be
honest the results were alittle dissapointing.. It's taken 6 hours
now at approximately 80% CPU to back up my 70Gb photo archive.
Does this sound about right? My entire s
Hi there.. I just did my first big backup with backuppc and to be honest
the results were alittle dissapointing.. It's taken 6 hours now at
approximately 80% CPU to back up my 70Gb photo archive. Does this sound
about right? My entire system is around 240Gb.. at this point I doubt I
could do it a
17 matches
Mail list logo
