Jeremy Mann wrote:
> Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
>
>> 50Mbps is actually quite a lot, and it's probably close to the
>> bottleneck of your disks. You should use "iostat" on client and server
>> while backups are running to see if you're getting 100%util of the
>> disks that are being backed up.
>>
>> In BackupPC's case, as it will transfer only the differences, it will
>> end up reading from disk much more than it actually sends on the
>> network, so using network bandwidth as a measure of backup speed will
>> not be very accurate.
>
> 50Mbit (5 MB/s) is *not* very quick when I'm used to our old rsync
> scripts that utilized our full gigE network.
What operations are you watching to see these numbers? The only one
where network bandwidth matters much is the initial copy of a new host.
The rest of the time you are mostly doing comparisions. Backuppc
will be slower than native rsync because it is in perl and because it is
working with a compressed copy for the comparison. And perhaps you
didn't use the --ignore-times option on the runs you are using for
comparison. Backuppc does this on fulls and it will slow things down to
the speed that the remote can read the whole disk for the checksum
comparisons - but it gives you an integrity check on your pooled copy.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
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/
