On Tuesday 23 January 2007 00:25, Ross Vandegrift wrote: >Hi everyone, > >I'm working on setting up some Amanda backups at my house and have run >into a serious performance problem. Both the client and the server >machine are using LVM2 for their disks. Though there's 320GiB of data >to backup, this is a bit ridiculous: > >sendbackup: time 8008.486: 87: normal(|): DUMP: 8.07% done at 3472 > kB/s, finished in 24:40 > >I've done tons of dumps to LVM volumes on a server with no speed >problems, so I'm investigating the client. dumping on the client to >/dev/null gives nearly the same performance, so I'm confident that >it's an issue with dump + LVM on the client. [1] > >The client is all but idle, not doing compression/encryption, and only >has two PVs in the VG, both of which are fast SATA disks. If I >increase the blocksize of dump to 64kiB (the largest the manpage says >is smart), performance gets better, in the range of 15-20M/s. > >Has anyone seen performance this bad from dump before? Is there >some tunable to get things running a little faster? 24 hours of a >full backup seems just terrible.... > > >[1] - So yea, technically this the wrong place to ask, the LVM mailing >lists seem to be all but completely dead. On the other hand, lots of >people know stuff about dump here!
Well, since dump works at the partition level, it may be that dump and LVM aren't compatible. Switch to tar, which is file oriented & see what happens. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
