comfi <[email protected]> wrote on 04/18/2011 06:57:45 PM:
> I recently fired up BackupPC as a replacement for our convoluted and
> outdated Amanda setup to backup an environment of about 200 servers.
> So far, I have BackupPC version 3.1.0 installed on an Ubuntu 10.04
> system. I'm using this to back up a grand total of three systems: 2
> other Ubuntu machines and the localhost. Everything was running fine
> and dandy when I had all backup data going to local disk. However,
> I'm having massive performance issues after switching to an NFS
> mount for my backup data.
>
> Per the instructions, I mounted /var/lib/backuppc to my NFS share.
> I'm using the following options:
>
> nfs.server.ourstuff.com:/backup/backuppc /var/lib/backuppc
> nfs nfsvers=3,tcp,hard,intr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,bg
>
> These options were recommended to me by Data Domain, the
> manufacturer of the storage device containing my NFS mount. This
> device only supports CIFS and NFS, sadly. I have also tried with
> larger and smaller rsize/wsize, and noatime.
>
> Everything appears to be working correctly. I can backup and restore
> with no errors. However, the performance is worse than atrocious and
> I can't believe everything is working
I agree strongly with Adam. Most likely, your problem is not a BackupPC
issue, but an NFS issue. To determine this, do some performance testing
with dd. If you see the same issue there (and I think you will), you can
then start to debug your NFS issues.
I also agree strongly with Adam: NFS and performance do *not* mix. I
have put much work into making NFS work with high performance for use as a
VMware datastore. All of my research led me to believe that it's just not
possible without using very high-end hardware with large battery-backed
cache. You might find my research helpful--at the very least, it will
show you how to perform the testing using dd.
http://communities.vmware.com/thread/263165?start=0&tstart=0
Having said all of the above, the results you are seeing (*minutes* for a
webpage to display) do not seem like expected low-end performance, they
sound like something is *broken*. However, it is *very* unlikly that it's
BackupPC that is broken, but rather something else at a lower layer.
Hopefully, a simple test with dd will help you to reproduce it simply and
easily, and let you test things more quickly.
Timothy J. Massey
Out of the Box Solutions, Inc.
Creative IT Solutions Made Simple!
http://www.OutOfTheBoxSolutions.com
[email protected]
22108 Harper Ave.
St. Clair Shores, MI 48080
Office: (800)750-4OBS (4627)
Cell: (586)945-8796
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
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/
