Out of curiosity, have you experimented with other filesystems? I have couple relatively large setups (pool at ~ 9 terabytes) with ext4 and those still crunch backups happily.
Previously I have used EXT4, only problem was once running out of inodes. But I find it hard to believe XFS with default options would be so much worse than any other file system with default options.
XFS has been a bit hit and miss for me, I know many swear by it, but where I've tested it, I've hit all kinds of random problems to a degree that I haven't bothered with it any more.
I have another host, same model and same RAID card. But disks are two 300 GB SAS disks in RAID1. There I got 11,2 MB/sec reading from 100Mbit/sek ethernet, and 127 MB/s with dd reading from /dev/zero. I got the speed down to 23.9 MB/s using 4k blocksize.
I'll have to examine the problem host more.
I've been recently experimenting with separating the pc and pool directories so pc directories are on SSD storage and the pool on HDDs. Jury is still out on real life speedups on this, but it seems possible with BPC4.
Interesting approach. Have to experiment when I set up next BackupPC host. -- Tapio Lehtonen OSK Satatuuli
<<attachment: tapio_lehtonen.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ 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/
