Adam Goryachev wrote: > >> I have given you all the information you asked for(didnt I?), even >> tried async option. Incremental backup of 1 machine still took about >> 300 minutes. >> >> The machine is working fine. I was using another backup program which >> was working way faster to backup the same machines. So I dont think >> that I have a hardware problem or such. >> > I haven't read *every* email in this thread (it was getting quite > repetitive seeing you complaining about how crap backuppc is), but
I am saying that it is slow. I am not complaining that it is crap. I think when something is really slow, I should have right to say it right? > anyway, could you please elaborate on the method that your 'other' > backup solution used, ie, if your other solution used rsync, and you are > using rsync with backuppc, then that might be helpful to know. If you > used tar before, and now use rsync, that would obviously make a difference. I have already said it earlier, the other backup was taking backup over NFS. I also have machines were for example 2GB data with 100k files is synced to another using rsync, it takes 30-60 seconds to go through 100k files if there are not so many files to sync. > I think overall, the attitude you have displayed is not conducive to > resolving the problem. I also think it has been clearly shown that > backuppc itself is not the problem, as other people are using it > successfully, under similar conditions. What you need to do is basic > diagnosis to find where the bottle neck is in your particular system. I disagree, I have given all the information requested from me. I have tried different things like mounting filesystems with async even though I know that it is not the problem just to make you guys happy. Now you say that my attitude is not helping the resolution? What makes you say so? Other people have been using it with dual-processor systems with 2-3GB of memory and raid setups. I would hardly consider this 'similar' conditions. BackupPC is very inefficent at handling files so you guys have to use very fast hardware solutions to speed it up. So you are covering up the problem from another side and say that there is no problem. > I'd suggest you use whatever tools are available under your chosen OS (I > think it is freebsd), to measure: > 1) CPU utilisation on both the client being backed up, and the backuppc > server I have already given this information the machines are almost idle. > 2) Memory/swap utilisation on both client and server I have already given this information, the disk where the swap is idle while taking backups even though there is some data in swap (perhaps idle data) > 3) Disk utilisation/bandwidth on both client and server I have sent this information also. I didnt send it on client actually but server is almost idle diskwise. The main disk load is on the server. > 4) Network utilisation/bandwidth on both client and server The network links are idle. I can send this information if you dont believe me but there is maybe 200-300kbits/sec other usage while taking backups. > Also, if you are using tar as your transfer method, then I'd suggest you > try a 'manual' backup something like this (note, this command line is > wrong, but you will need to adjust to get the right one). This is a good idea, I will try it later and return back to you. (even though I am using rsync) > from the backuppc machine: > cd /var/lib/backuppc;mkdir temp;cd temp;ssh client tar -cf - /backupdir > | tar -xf - > Try and copy the command line args from your backup log file.... > > Time how long that takes, and see how it compares to backuppc times.... > if they are similar, then you know the issue is outside of backuppc. > > Of course, if you are using rsync, then do the same test with rsync > data, but I'm sure it has already been said that you should use tar for > your case with lots of small files. > > Just my 0.02c worth.... I will do the test with both actually, I will copy all files from the client to server using both rsync and tar and return back the results. By the way, if you have read all the mails, you would have realized that I have given all the information requested. The fact that backuppc saturates the backup drive while taking backups just makes me believe that the problem is there. But anyhow, I am open to try other things also. 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/
