David Relson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:44:53 +1100
> Brendan Simon wrote
>> * The backuppc server is an Intel P3 800MHz with 512MB RAM and
>> 550GB or raid storage for data backups.
>> * The linux host I am backing up is a Dual Processor AMD64 2GHz
>> with 2GB RAM.
>> * All are connected via 1Gbps Ethernet switch.
>>
>>
>> Since the MSW machines backup reasonably fast, I can rule out the
>> backuppc server.
>> Since the Linux host is fairly grunty I can rule out that as limiting
>> factor (sort of).
>> I have turned on the rsync --checksum-seed option as suggested by
>> John Pettitt. Hopefully that will improve things.
>>
> Backuppc is memory intensive, especially when you have lots of files.
> FWIW, a couple of years ago I upgraded my backup machine from 512MB to
> 1GB because it was having trouble handling the large number of files
> on my development machine.
>
> Try running top on your server while running backuppc. Look at the ram
> usage for your windows machine (small number of files) and for your
> linux machine (large number of files). You may find that a large
> number of files causes the server to go into swap mode, thus becoming
> slow.
>
> So, your bottleneck may be the 512MB on your backup machine. Doubling
> the ram may be the solution you seek.
>
Below is my top output on the backup server. It may not be truly
representative of the maximum load as it is only backing up one
directory of the linux host at the moment, where as sometimes there can
be up to 4 hosts backing up at once. The last full backup of that
directory was 753,449 files / 10,486MB.
There is some swap space being used but I guess it depends what is
swapped out and how often it needs to be swapped back in. Do the
numbers below look problematic ???
Unfortunately, I'm told that this P3 server can only take a maximum of
512MB of memory. Might be a good argument for a new backup server :)
So is the bottleneck rsync or the number of files or memory ???
It sounds like the number of files impacts on backuppc memory. What
about rsync performance?
Would exporting via NFS be faster (analogous to SMB)? or is the number
of files to process the killer?
top - 11:49:20 up 6 days, 17:06, 6 users, load average: 1.28,
1.30, 1.27
Tasks: 67 total, 5 running, 62 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 83.2%us, 12.9%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 1.0%hi,
3.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 515652k total, 509248k used, 6404k free, 165900k buffers
Swap: 979956k total, 36028k used, 943928k free, 121848k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7263 backuppc 15 0 149m 132m 2104 S 0.0 26.2 22:21.31
BackupPC_dump
7269 backuppc 25 0 109m 90m 1296 R 70.5 18.1 85:44.80
BackupPC_dump
2221 backuppc 15 0 8644 4836 1424 S 0.0 0.9 0:30.46 BackupPC
7268 backuppc 15 0 6496 4240 1908 R 27.8 0.8 20:48.06 ssh
2224 backuppc 18 0 6460 3912 1144 S 0.0 0.8 67:19.31
BackupPC_trashC
3014 root 18 0 7692 1668 1232 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.11 sshd
5499 www-data 18 0 4880 1588 920 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.08 apache
Thanks, Brendan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
