Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/09/2007 04:15:31 PM: > On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 15:28 -0500, Timothy J. Massey wrote: > > > I guess the best way to improve this would be to avoid rsync... > > However, I like rsyncd. I never realized how heavy the overhead is with > > rsync, though. Unless I'm missing something? > > > > Thoughts? > > There is quite a bit of overhead on the server side when you are > doing a full rsync backup because it does block-checksum compares > against existing files and has to uncompress for this calculation.
I don't use compression. The fewer layers in my backup strategy the better: and disk space is cheap! :) (The fact that BackupPC mangles every file name is bad enough...) The CPU usage on the backup server is pure rsync overhead. Might it help if the rsync protocol on the backup server were not written in perl? Or do I misunderstand, and it's in a compiled library? In any case, that won't help the load on the other end, and that *is* running a standard rsync binary. > Maybe you just need to force a full on different servers each night > to get your full runs out of sync with each other. Or force some > to run on weekends when it won't matter if it runs into the next > day. The 160GB takes, IIRC, about 16 hours to back up from an empty pool. I have no problem with that. It works flawlessly, even during the business day, if necessary. My motivation for replying some time ago was in response to others that say that they get outstanding performance from low-end machines. I've *never* been able to get great performance from my low-end C3, and I was wondering what the difference was. It seems that they're not using rsync. What are people using? SMB? I've seen too many issues with Samba to count on it for my backups. For Windows servers, those are really the only two realistic options, right? For Linux, you could do tar-over-ssh, I guess. In any case, won't using a protocol besides rsync remove the ability to only transfer deltas? Many of my servers need to back up large files such as e.g. Lotus Notes databases that might be gigabytes big, but only change by small amounts every day. So, if some of even my Linux servers have to go rsync, I might as well stay consistent. I don't really *need* the performance. I just wanted to understand why everyone else seemed to have it, and I didn't! :) I would *love* to know if someone *is* getting substantially more than 3MB/s using rsync. What is the processing power of both machines? Tim Massey ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
