On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 20:18, Matt 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.
I suspect there are a lot of synchronous handshakes involved in the rsync block checksum exchange where a little bit of latency from compession and from being in perl adds up quickly. I don't see a huge slowdown per client when running concurrent backups on a dual processor server although I haven't timed the difference specifically and I run a mix of tar/smb/rsync to different clients - and several involve only a few large files. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- 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/
