On 3/3/2019 12:52 PM, Peter Milesson wrote:
Hi folks,
I did some testing during the weekend.
* When backing up a huge file (> 10GB), the Windows transfer rate is
comparable to the Linux transfer rate (32 Mb/s).
Yes. This is why I suspect the problem lies in NTFS, not in network
Hi folks,
I did some testing during the weekend.
* When backing up a huge file (> 10GB), the Windows transfer rate is
comparable to the Linux transfer rate (32 Mb/s).
* Setting the file daemon buffer to 32k on the Windows server seemed
to help, but not very much.
* The Windows backup
I see no reason why the Windows bpipe plugin could not be released
to the community. If you would like please submit a "bug" request
for it. I don't promise anything though ...
On 3/1/19 5:34 PM, Wanderlei Huttel
wrote:
Hello Kern
Thanks for your answer!
About Windows clients.
I know that in the Enterprise version there is a bpipe plugin for Windows.
Do you know if the bpipe plugin will be released for community? And if it
will be possible to escape the colons (:)?
In firebird, for example is necessary to
Hello Wanderlei,
Well, it is not known to me that the community Windows client is not
working as well as the Enterprise version. Version 7.4.4 is very
old, but since then the community version has been brought up to
date at least two times with the Enterprise
Hi Josh,
With the current settings, last access updates where disabled for
Windows, and neither ATIME nor NOATIME for the Linux server. So in the
current setup, the Linux server was at a disadvantage. I changed the
network buffer to 32k on the Windows server, and I'll be wiser tomorrow,
if
Hello Wanderlei,
Well, it is not known to me that the community Windows client is not
working as well as the Enterprise version. Version 7.4.4 is very
old, but since then the community version has been brought up to
date at least two times with the Enterprise
I also attribute this to Windows inefficiencies, particularly in NTFS
handling of small files.However, I am not sure that those inefficiencies
explain a greater than 50% performance hit. Two quick changes come to
mind that may help.
1. Change MaximumNetworkBufferSize to 32k in bacula-fd.conf.
Hello Kern
I know that this issue could have a lot of possibilities, but it's known
that the community Windows client is not working fine as Enterprise
version 7.4.4 that was released to the personal used in the past time.
The installation generate some trash files, the bacula-fd.conf is not
Hi Uwe,
Thanks for your input. Something similar is what I would expect. I'm
going to try some of the previous suggestions during the weekend, and
see if there are some identifiable bottlenecks.
Best regards
On 01.03.2019 14:42, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:
I just checked our installation
I just checked our installation (direct-to-tape backup, lto5, LAN
gigabit connectivity), and I'm not seeing any significant performance
issues between windows and Linux clients.
The evidence is naturally anecdotal though as several backups are
running concurrently, but I'm not seeing anything out
Hi Heitor,
Great! See the job log below. It's the last incremental job log, but it
gives a good indication anyway (the actual Dir, Fd and Sd entries redacted).
Best regards,
Peter
28-Feb 23:05 MyDir JobId 1015: Start Backup JobId 1015,
Job=Server2017.2019-02-28_23.05.00_03
28-Feb 23:05
Hello,
I have noticed similar things. I have always attributed the slower
speed on Windows due to the fact that Microsoft hired the best students
from the best schools but most of them knew nothing about programming
and programming history (in particular Unix), thus these geniuses
re-invented
Hi Sergio,
You are right about the file sets. The Windows file set is about a
quarter the size, compared to the Linux one. There are no database
backups, just files. Neither have I seen any network bottlenecks. Both
servers are connected to the same switch, with a 10GbE trunk directly to
the
Hi Heitor,
No network bottlenecks. There isn't a single 100Mbit device in the path.
Both servers are connected to the same switch, and the path to the
backup server is 10GbE all the way.
Thanks for your input.
Best regards,
Peter
On 01.03.2019 3:12, Heitor Faria wrote:
Hello Peter,
On 01.03.2019 1:50, Adam Nielsen wrote:
I'm backing up 2 servers with Bacula, one with Windows 2016, the other
one with CentOS. The hardware is described below. The Windows server is
much more powerful than the Linux server in all respects, and should
theoretically deliver data to the Bacula
> I'm backing up 2 servers with Bacula, one with Windows 2016, the other
> one with CentOS. The hardware is described below. The Windows server is
> much more powerful than the Linux server in all respects, and should
> theoretically deliver data to the Bacula server at a much higher rate.
>
Hi folks,
I'm backing up 2 servers with Bacula, one with Windows 2016, the other
one with CentOS. The hardware is described below. The Windows server is
much more powerful than the Linux server in all respects, and should
theoretically deliver data to the Bacula server at a much higher rate.
18 matches
Mail list logo
