Jason Hughes wrote: > Evren Yurtesen wrote: >> I know that the bottleneck is the disk. I am using a single ide disk >> to take the backups, only 4 machines and 2 backups running at a >> time(if I am not remembering wrong). >> >> I see that it is possible to use raid to solve this problem to some >> extent but the real solution is to change backuppc in such way that it >> wont use so much disk operations. >> > > > The whole purpose of live backup media is to use the media. What you > may be noticing is that perhaps your drive is mounted with access time > being tracked. You should check that your fstab has "noatime" as a > parameter for your mounted data volume. This probably cuts the seeks > down by nearly half or more.
I have noatime. > And, you could consider buying a faster drive, or one with a larger > buffer. Some IDE drives have pathetically small buffers and slow > rotation rates. That makes for a greater need for seeking, and worse > seek performance. Well this is a seagate barracuda 7200rpm drive with 8mb cache ST3250824A http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/100389997c.pdf Perhaps it is not the maximum amount of cache one can have on a drive but it is not that bad really. > Also, if your server is a single-proc, you'll probably want to reduce it > to 1 simultaneous backup, not 2. Heck, if you are seeing bad thrashing > on the disk, it would have better coherence if you stick to 1 anyway. > Increase your memory and you may see less virtual memory swapping as well. > It seems that your setup is very similar to mine, and I'm not seeing the > kind of performance problems you're reporting. Full backup using rsyncd > over a slow wifi link of about 65gb is only taking about 100 minutes. > Incrementals are about 35 minutes. Using SMB on a different machine > with about 30gb, it takes 300 minutes for a full, even over gigabit, but > only a couple of minutes for an incremental (because it doesn't detect > as many changes as rsync). So it varies dramatically with the protocol > and hardware. > > JH I read your posts about wifi etc. on forum. The processor is not the problem however adding memory probably might help bufferwise. I think this idea can actually work.:) thanks! I am seeing swapping problems but the disk the swap is on is almost idle. The backup drive is working all the time. I have to say that slow performance with BackupPC is a known problem. I have heard it from several other people who are using BackupPC and it is the #1 reason of changing to another backup program from what I hear. Things must improve on this area. Thanks, Evren ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
