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.


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
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/

Reply via email to