John Pettitt 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. >> >> > > > From what I can tell the issue is that each file requires a hard link - > depending on your file system metadata like directory entries, had links > etc get treated differently that regular data - on a BSD ufs2 system > metadata updates are typically synchronous, that is the system doesn't > return until the write has made it to the disk. This is good for > reliability but really bad for performance since it prevents out of > order writes which can save a lot of disk activity. > Changing backuppc would be decidedly non-trivial - eyeballing it to hack > in a real database to store the relationship between pool and individual > files would touch almost just about every part of the system. > > What filesystem are you using and have you turned off atime - I found > that makes a big difference. > > John
I have noatime, I will try bumping up the memory and hope that the caching will help. I will let you know if it helps. 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
