Il 30/05/2013 12:56, Adam Goryachev ha scritto: > On 30/05/13 18:13, Nicola Scattolin wrote: >> Il 30/05/2013 10:04, Adam Goryachev ha scritto: >>> On 30/05/13 16:57, Nicola Scattolin wrote: >>>> hi, >>>> i have a problem in full backups of a 2TB disk. >>>> when backuppc do fullbackup it takes on average 1866.0 minutes while the >>>> incremental backup takes around 20 minutes. >>>> do you think there is something wrong or it's just for the amount of >>>> data to be backupd? >>> Most likely this is a limitation of bandwidth, CPU, or memory on either >>> the backuppc server, or the machine being backed up. >>> >>> Have you enabled checksum-seed in your config? >>> Are you even using rsync? >>> >>> Remember a full backup will read the full content of every file (talking >>> about rsync because I will assume that is what you are using) on both >>> the client and backuppc server. A incremental only looks at file >>> attributes such as size and timestamp. >>> >>> Can you be more detailed about your configuration, and during a full >>> backup look at memory utilisation on both backuppc server and the client. >>> >>> PS, this question is asked regularly, so you should also look at the >>> archives to see the previous discussions (which have been very detailed, >>> and sometimes heated). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Adam >>> >> i use smb to transfer file, and there are not be cpu or bandwidth >> limitation, it's a local server. >> where is the checksum-seed option? i can't find it > > OK, so this is even more obvious. > > An incremental will only look at the timestamp, and transfer all files > newer than the timestamp of the previous backup. > A full will transfer ALL files, therefore this is disk I/O + network > bandwidth limited. > > 2TB of data will take 335 minutes at 1Gbps (assuming you can read from > the source disk at least 1Gbps, and write to the destination disk at > 1Gbps, and utilise 100% of source/destination disk bandwidth as well as > 100% of network bandwidth, and there was nil overhead for handling each > individual filename/etc... > > You are getting just under 20MB/sec, which is probably not unreasonable. > > As mentioned, if you want it faster, you will need to determine where > the bottleneck is, which means looking at disk IO (most likely), network > bandwidth, CPU (especially if you use compression on the backuppc > server), etc... > > Regards, > Adam > > i have checked the disk usage and the i/o that backuppc output me in the summary page, and 7.37 is Mb/sec is the value i got. The server is virtualized but the hardisk is linked directly to the virtual machine in mirroring raid, do you thing is a good speed or could be better?
-- Nicola Scattolin Ser.Tec s.r.l. Via E. Salgari 14/E 31056 Roncade, Treviso http://dpidgprinting.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ 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/
