On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Timothy J Massey <tmas...@obscorp.com> wrote:
>
> Will do. You were the one that turned me on to Clonezilla, and I'm always
> open to new tools... :)
>
> ReaR is not exactly the most Google-friendly search term (on so many
> levels...), so for others (and to confirm): http://relax-and-recover.org/
Yes, and that even looks like the current stuff - they recently moved
from sourceforge. Packages should be available for rpm/deb based
systems in common repositories.
> Sadly, *so* many of my servers are Windows...
Clonezilla works, but you have to shut down to save the image.
> Nope: these boards have a maximum of 4GB. Again: embedded.
>
> And we've had this debate before. Of 4GB of RAM, 3.2GB of RAM is cache!
> Do you *really* think that more will help? I doubt that the entire EXT4
> filesystem on-disk structure takes 3GB of disk space! I've demonstrated
> that in previous experiments: going from 512MB to 4GB made *zero*
> difference. I doubt going beyond 4GB is going to change that, either.
I think the best you could hope for is to get the bulk of the
directories and inodes in cache. But that might save a few million
seeks.
> > I always think 'seek time' whenever there is enough delay to notice -
> > and anything that concurrently wants the disk head somewhere else is
> > going to kill the throughput.
>
> I think you are way overstating this. The disks on the clients spend a
> good chunk of their time *idle* even when a backup is going on.
Maybe, but seek times are always orders of magnitude greater than any
other computer operation, so that's usually the place to start. On
the other hand, maybe your CPUs are worse than anything I've used in a
long time. My worst current box is a 32-bit xeon with 2 CPUs with
hyperthreading. /proc/cpuinfo shows bogomips: 4791.23 for them. The
VM where I pulled the previous numbers shows 4 CPUs (not sure if 2 are
hyperthreads or not) with bogomips: 5320.00 but it feels considerably
faster than the 32-bit box. Also, I generally use Intel server-type
NICs but I'm not really sure if they are better or if there are big
differences in CPU involvement with different types.
> The guest servers are not hurting for resources. They are not part of the
> problem. The problem seems to be contained completely inside of the
> BackupPC server.
If you aren't seeing big speed differences among clients you are
probably right. I do and they seem related to hardware capabilities.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
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/
