On 6/19/2018 1:35 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote: > Hi there > > Friday, June 15, 2018, 3:06:30 PM, you wrote: > > BB> It finally finished after 24 hours. That gives about 13G/hour or about > BB> 3.8M/s. > > BB> The CPUs were not busy. That's what I was confused about. I would have > BB> expected to see a bottleneck at some point, but nothing seemed to be > BB> busy. The CPUs were all at or below 20% and iowait was close to 0 most > BB> of the time. I'm not sure how I would determine if the loopback was > BB> saturated. > > what file system are you using? I am operating a mailserver on a > dedicated machine. There are some millions of small files on that > machine, so the situation is comparable to yours. When I set up that > machine some years ago, I compared various file systems. Surprisingly, > ext4 came out as winner to handle these small files. I am just using > ext4 on top of the hardware, no lvm on that machine. And of course > having a lot of RAM may also speed up your machine, because the server > can read ahead data. I think it may be a matter of tuning that server > to get better performance. > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt may > give some hints on read ahead tuning.
The backup server is xfs. I haven't looked into performance tuning, since most of my servers are not doing enough IO to need it. -- Bowie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ 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/
