Les Mikesell wrote: > How are you measuring the traffic? ntop Anyway, I'm preparing a separate test setup now, to be able to do correct tests (so both BackupPC and an rsync tree are using data from the same time). Test results will be here tomorrow.
But I don know that BackupPC does use more bandwidth. Besides: when dumping a full backup, the 'pool' means (I hope): file already in pool, using it. If not, then there is a problem, as those files are already in another backup set of the test host. But BackupPC pulls them over anyway. > It should work the way you expect as-is, although the rsync-in-perl > that knows how to read the compressed archive is somewhat slower. The problem ain't the backup server nor it's speed. The problem is the data transfer. And I have set up BackupPC here 'as-is' in the first place, but we saw that the full backups, that ran every 7 days, took about 3 to 4 days to complete, while for the same hosts the incrementals finished in 1 hour. That's why I got digging into the principles of BackupPC, as I wanted to know why the full backups don't works 'as expected'. -- Toni Van Remortel Linux System Engineer @ Precision Operations NV +32 3 451 92 26 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
