On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately, it doesn't scale very well in terms of performance - you > may see this thread on linux-fsdevel list for more info: > http://marc.info/?t=120333985100003&r=2&w=4
What version of BackupPC? 3.1.0 does the inode sorting in the nightly process as described in the thread if you have IO::Dirent installed (check that's installed, too). > The main problem seems to be hard disk seeks caused by a great amount of > hardlinks. I.e., removing anything from the drive takes ages. The only way you can really reduce the cost of all these seeks (unless you can find a filesystem better than ext3 which handles this type of situation better) is to try to limit head movement on the spindles. This would mean partitioning your disks and using a smaller portion of the disk for the BackupPC data partition. Or adding more spindles with higher rotation speeds and lower seek latencies. I did find it odd that you said after dropping the caches deletes ran fairly quickly for a while, then slowed down. This seems to point to some sort of kernel bug. Some people have said that perhaps reiserfs or xfs may perform better than ext3 for this type of workload, but I don't know of any real benchmarks made with a BackupPC type workload which is fairly unusual. I assume that you've already mounted the filesystem with noatime? -Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ 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/
