'Phil Stracchino' wrote:
>On 10/09/10 07:31, Henrik Johansen wrote:
>> $ dtrace -n 'sysinfo:::writech / execname == "bacula-sd" / {
>> @dist[execname] = quantize(arg0); }'
>>
>> dtrace: description 'sysinfo:::writech ' matched 4 probes
>> ^C
>>
>>bacula-sd
>> value -
On 10/09/10 07:31, Henrik Johansen wrote:
> $ dtrace -n 'sysinfo:::writech / execname == "bacula-sd" / {
> @dist[execname] = quantize(arg0); }'
>
> dtrace: description 'sysinfo:::writech ' matched 4 probes
> ^C
>
>bacula-sd
> value - Distribution - count
'Phil Stracchino' wrote:
>On 10/07/10 13:47, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm planning a Bacula setup with ZFS on the SDs (media being disk,
>> not tape), and I just wonder - should I use a smaller recordsize (aka
>> largest block size) than the default setting of 128kB?
>
>Actually,
>
> I have been using this setup for awhile. You absolutely must disable
Bacula
> compression on the ZFS Devices within the SD or for the specific Pools
that
> have volumes on the ZFS. Doubling up encryption can actually increase
file
> sizes and also lead to data errors.
>
It can _not_ lead to
On 10/07/10 13:47, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm planning a Bacula setup with ZFS on the SDs (media being disk,
> not tape), and I just wonder - should I use a smaller recordsize (aka
> largest block size) than the default setting of 128kB?
Actually, there are arguments in favor of
'Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk' wrote:
>Hi all
>
>I'm planning a Bacula setup with ZFS on the SDs (media being disk, not
>tape), and I just wonder - should I use a smaller recordsize (aka
>largest block size) than the default setting of 128kB?
Setting the recordsize to 64k has worked well for us so far.
I
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> If the data coming from bacula are already compressed by the bacula-fd
>> there's little space for improvement.
>> In your type of setup, I would disable compression on bacula-fd
>> increasing the speed of backup, your sd doing it by z
I have been using this setup for awhile. You absolutely must disable Bacula
compression on the ZFS Devices within the SD or for the specific Pools that
have volumes on the ZFS. Doubling up encryption can actually increase file
sizes and also lead to data errors.
-Shon
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:11
> If the data coming from bacula are already compressed by the bacula-fd
> there's little space for improvement.
> In your type of setup, I would disable compression on bacula-fd
> increasing the speed of backup, your sd doing it by zfs mechanism.
thing is, I can't find anything about compression
On 10/07/2010 07:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm planning a Bacula setup with ZFS on the SDs (media being disk, not tape),
> and I just wonder - should I use a smaller recordsize (aka largest block
> size) than the default setting of 128kB?
>
> Also, last I tried, with ZFS o
Hi all
I'm planning a Bacula setup with ZFS on the SDs (media being disk, not tape),
and I just wonder - should I use a smaller recordsize (aka largest block size)
than the default setting of 128kB?
Also, last I tried, with ZFS on a test box, I enabled compression, the lzjb
algorithm (very lig
11 matches
Mail list logo
