> Les Mikesell: You are right. With speeds of 1.5MB per second, usage of BackupPC would still be possible. Although recovering 15GB of data in case of crisis, taking 3 hours, I am not sure I'd want to use BackupPC if performance is that slow.
Maximum speed is not that important, although I would have to switch to inferior back-up software or even self-written rsyncs if slowest speeds are a few hundred kB/sec and topping out at a mere 2MB per second. > Do you have gigabit network cards? You can get them for under $20 easily. Yes. All servers have gigabit network cards. > Are you using SATA drives in your system? Drives are cheap. Yes, drives have a throughput of 60 to 110 MB per second. This differs per server. > Do you have CAT6 cable? Yes, high quality UTP cables. > Are you upgraded to the latest version of Linux and BackupPC? I noticed > wonderful improvements after upgrading. I am running the BackupPC 3.1 for CentOS 5.6 via EPEL. Although performance on a Debian server was identical. > This is using SMB, by the way. I use the default settings, I beleive it's rsync. I could post my configuration file if that would be helpful. I would love to use BackupPC and if I can get it to speeds of 4 or 5 MB per second I would be thrilled. I just benchmarked both a BackupPC and Bacula back-up (not simultanously) and BackupPC ran 3 hours, 10 minutes for 15GB, while Bacula did it in 17 minutes. --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ _______________________________________________ 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/
