Les Mikesell wrote: >Are you comparing uncompressed native rsync runs to the perl version >that handles backuppc's compressed files? > More or less yes. Dirvish boils down to a perl wrapper around "rsync --link-dest=DIR ..."
I haven't tested backuppc without compression -- after all this was one reason for my switch. If storing uncompressed buys me back the order of magnitude in speed I may be tempted to use it. My assumption is that the directory structure of the pool is the main reason for the performance degradation. > There are more variables >involved than the link structure. Also, backuppc may be running >several backups at once, which is a good thing if you have a fast >server and slow or remote clients. > > No, it's just one client. Rough numbers off of my head: Full-back, 1 client, 1.4TB, 5e5 -- 1e6 files, after existing backup, I guess < 5% changes during the week: 21 h Incremental backup of the client: 1.5 h Dirvish, same client, same server: 15 min ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
