On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Jesper Krogh wrote:
I'm multiplexing anything up to 20 jobs at a time. To ensure that small
incremental and diff jobs are dumped in one hit and to ensure that full
backups are laid in as large chunks as possible, this is the kindof size
which is required.
Are you
Hi,
18.12.2008 06:50, Jesper Krogh wrote:
Alan Brown wrote:
Jesper Krogh wrote:
I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Jesper Krogh wrote:
100-200Gb ram and systems capable of addressing that amount of memory are
still far more expensive than a stack of flash drives, else I'd use them.
But do you need to spool a complete tape? In order to avoid doing evil stuff
to you tape drive, much
Thanks for the elaborate reply. Just a few more querious questions.
Alan Brown wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Jesper Krogh wrote:
100-200Gb ram and systems capable of addressing that amount of memory are
still far more expensive than a stack of flash drives, else I'd use them.
But do you need
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Josh Fisher wrote:
I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
Because of that I'm considering
Alan Brown wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Brian Debelius wrote:
John Drescher wrote:
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
systems
Jesper Krogh wrote:
I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
Because of that I'm considering dropping in solid state
Alan Brown wrote:
Jesper Krogh wrote:
I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
Because of that I'm considering dropping
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Jeff Kalchik wrote:
*NEVER* use software RAID if you can avoid it. Software RAID puts a
pretty good hit right on your CPU.
That hasn't been true in Linux for a number of years. Given a modern
machine (less than 2-5 years old) _and sufficient ram_, Linux software
raid is a
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
I'm not sure about ubuntu, but if you are installing debian you can
setup raid right there, during installation. It was fairly easy. After
that bacula setup and you are ready to go.
Ubuntu _is_ Debian, more or less.
There's plenty of
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Brian Debelius wrote:
John Drescher wrote:
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
systems that are 3 or
Well right now I have an old Asus k8v-se which has an Athlon 64
processor. So from the conversation, it seems that it should be enough
for software raid. But the basboard has only 2 sata ports, and 2 raid
ports, and 5 PCI slots. If I wanted more disks I would have to add a
controller, or
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Brian Debelius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well right now I have an old Asus k8v-se which has an Athlon 64 processor.
Some of my raid older servers are very similar to this motherboard
with Athlon64 3000 chips.
So from the conversation, it seems that it should
Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:04 PM, John Drescher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be?
Depends on what level of performance you are looking for. My director
is a 2 processor 2GHz opteron machine (circa 2003) with 4
Alan Brown wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Brian Debelius wrote:
John Drescher wrote:
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single
Hello,
I am currently running Ubuntu. The bacula director and sd are on this
box. I have bacula configured to spool to this box, and then it goes
directly to tape. I want to change how I am backing up. I would like to
have some period of time of disk backups, and have them
Hello,
I am currently running Ubuntu. The bacula director and sd are on this
box. I have bacula configured to spool to this box, and then it goes
directly to tape. I want to change how I am backing up. I would like to
have some period of time of disk backups, and have them
*NEVER* use software RAID if you can avoid it. Software RAID puts a
pretty good hit right on your CPU.
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on
Normally I would say,
1) Performance generally ie cpu hit is not a huge issue IMHO,
especially with todays dual and quad core cpus...and of course ram is
dirt cheap.
2) For me the big issues is Ive lost software raid sets from power
failures for a backup partition that's probably no
So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be?
Depends on what level of performance you are looking for. My director
is a 2 processor 2GHz opteron machine (circa 2003) with 4 GB of memory
and 18 or so x 250 GB SATA 1 drives in raid 6. My main storage daemon
is on a second machine
John Drescher wrote:
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
systems that are 3 or so years old.
So what do you think a reasonable
Dear Jeff Kalchik,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
*NEVER* use software RAID if you can avoid it. Software RAID puts a
pretty good hit right on your CPU.
He. So what does me a h/w RAID controller good when I find myself
having the system in 90% I/O wait? On a file server
Brian Debelius wrote:
John Drescher wrote:
In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
systems that are 3 or so years old.
So what do
Jeff Kalchik wrote:
Hello,
I am currently running Ubuntu. The bacula director and sd are on this
box. I have bacula configured to spool to this box, and then it goes
directly to tape. I want to change how I am backing up. I would like to
have some period of time of disk backups, and have
24 matches
Mail list logo
