On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Ulrich Leodolter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 20:03 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Ulrich Leodolter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 13:34 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Ulrich Leodolter wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > Problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > Settings like (documented in the Manual)
> > > > >
> > > > > Minimum block size = 64K
> > > > > Maximum block size = 200K
> > > > >
> > > > > do not work. Both are defined as size_pint32.
> > > > > multipliers like K M are not allowed.
> > > > > don't know if this is intended,
> > > > > maybe documentation just a little outdated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Question:
> > > > >
> > > > > Can i expect performance improvements (especially for
> > > > > Copy/Migrate Disk to Tape jobs) by by increasing
> > > > > "Maximum block size" on File devices in bacula-sd.conf ???
> > > > >
> > > > > Device {
> > > > > Name = FileStorage
> > > > > Media Type = File
> > > > > Archive Device = /disk0/bacula/files
> > > > > LabelMedia = yes;
> > > > > Random Access = Yes;
> > > > > Requires Mount = No;
> > > > > AutomaticMount = yes;
> > > > > RemovableMedia = no;
> > > > > AlwaysOpen = no;
> > > > > MaximumBlockSize = 1048576; # 1M
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it should make difference at least with tape drives..
> > > >
> > > > You can measure the difference with dd:
> > > >
> > > > dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/tape bs=<try_different_block_sizes_here>
> > > >
> > > > 4k, 64k, 256k, 1MB, 4MB etc.
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I dont think raw performance is bad, as u can see below
> > > (exeption is 4k block size on tape,
> > > hopfully bacula does not use it :-)
> > >
> > > Maybe i should set
> > >
> > > Minimum Block Size = 4194304
> > >
> > > on both devices (Tape, File)
> > > This should reduce the number of block read/writes communication
> > > by a factor of 64.
> > >
> > > Will try it tonight, unless u give me a very good hint how to
> > > optimize ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Did you figure out 'best' performance settings for these disk-to-tape copy
> > jobs?
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> still using default tape block size 63k
>
Ok. So you don't have any min/max block sizes defined in Bacula config?
> disk volumes are limited to 4G
>
> concurrent disk backup jobs use spooling, now full backup jobs
> are spread almost continuous over 4G volumes
>
> copy disk to tape runs without spooling at rates up to 50000 kbytes/s
>
Ok. That's not bad.
>
> this is acceptable, but emc networker does the same job (copy disk
> backup jobs to tape) at rates up to 75000 kbytes/s
>
So still some room for improvement..
>
> but there is still an open bug which affects performance
> http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1190
> especially when concurrent disk backup dont use spooling.
>
Ok. Thanks.
And I guess "multiple threading multiple buffering" would help aswell:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01246.html
-- Pasi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
