On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Timothy J Massey <tmas...@obscorp.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you repeat those the 3rd time with checksum-caching enabled so we
> > have a better idea of how much time that saves? (If you didn't have
> > it on already, you'd need to repeat again to store them first)
>
>
> The host I was playing with is a bad one for that: it's a pretty visible
> host, and about 30% of the data changes constantly. I've selected another
> host to experiment with. One issue is that it's three times as large, so
> each full backup is slower. Good news is that it's an unused server, so
> 99.99% of the data is static, and no one cares if I hammer the server for no
> real reason! :)
>
> I just ran a first backup of that host with compression disabled, and it
> took the same amount of time as not-first fulls were taking with
> compression. The backup server is busy right now and probably for the next
> 2 or so hours. Once it's free, I will start a second non-compression full
> and we'll see how it goes.
>
> Right now, still no hash caching. Once I gather the stats for
> non-compression only, I will add in hash caching and we'll see from there.
Thanks - I think that will be a useful thing to know,. And something
that should have an effect whether the bottleneck on the system is the
CPU or disk.
--
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/
