Jesse Proudman wrote: > I've got one customer who's server has taken 3600 minutes to > backup. 77 Gigs of Data. 1,972,859 small files. Would tar be > better or make this faster? It's directly connected via 100 Mbit to > the backup box. > >
First, determine your bottleneck. Is it disk i/o or cpu limited? There is another thread going on about small files and seek times. A quick calculation, assuming 8ms per seek and two seeks per file, gives me 540 minutes worth of seeks for 2m files, and ~183 minutes of transfer time (assume 70% efficiency, best case). I don't think the protocol is the limiting factor, necessarily. :-) Tar uses less cpu and more bandwidth, so if that's the place you're having trouble (cpu), switching might help. It also has lower per-file transfer latency (rsync calculates checksums and sends extra packets to determine what to send), which might help. But in any case, I think the backups will take half a day under theoretical best conditions. Thanks, JH ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
