Hello, Please always copy the bacula-users list so that the others can benefit from what you are discovering.
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 07:29, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: > So, if I force the windows machines to 32K net buffer, what is the correct > way to handle the others daemons? Normally, if a network card/OS doesn't gracefully handle 65K network buffers, you need only change it for that machine, especially if it is the FD. > - should I force to 32K the sd too? If it is a Linux machine that should not really be necessary. However, in one case I am not really sure, and that is during restores, if the SD is sending 65K buffers and the FD is receiving in 32K buffers, I am not sure if you will run into the same slow down problem ... In principle, the TCP/IP protocol should handle it. Some testing of restore speeds with SD buffer sizes at 65K and 32K could probably answer this question. One downside to setting the SD to 32K max buffer size may be that transfers from Linux (or well behaving Win32) machines may run slower. For anyone sending data across the Internet, you should seriously consider setting the maximum network buffer size smaller. > - should I force any other fd on the lan to 32k too? I don't see any reason to do so unless they are having speed problems. > - may I leave everything to default, but the windows machines? Yes, I would say so, with the reservation I made above about possible slowdown of restores. > At the moment I forced everything to 32k. I don't see any great problem with that. Previous performance testing by a user showed that on Linux/Unix machines the performance could have spectacular speedups by increasing the network buffer size -- even more than 65K. If the system is reliable and fast enough for you at 32K buffer size, I would be inclined to keep it that way. If not, experiment. However, in any experimentation, you need to keep good paper records of what you are changing and what the results are, or you can quickly get lost ... Regards, Kern > Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. > Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 > Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY > http://www.sonicle.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------- Da: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: Gabriele Bulfon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Data: 30 gennaio 2007 20.16.33 CET > Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Solved why Windows FD 1.38 sometime is slow > Hello, > > On Tuesday 30 January 2007 18:41, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: > > I had headaches for a week, trying to figure out why some windows FDs > > were VERY slow compared to all the rest of FDs. These slow clients were > > all rating at around 1Mb/s. After playing a bit with many system and > > bacula parameters, I decided not to trust what was stated in the manual: > > "the default Maximum Network Buffer Size = 32768". Because I tried rising > > this parameter to double default, both on sd and all fds, and noticed > > that I had a slow down of all the FDs, I put back everything to default. > > Then I decided to explicitly set the > > "Maximum Network Buffer Size = 32768" to the windows machine > > that was still so slow....and it magically started to work as the rest of > > fds!!! > > Yes, you are right. The documentation is incorrect. The default was 32768 > but was at some point changed to 65536, but the documentation did not get > updated. The 65536 works very well in the Unix/Linux environment, but as > you have discovered (absolutely amazing), it may not work on some network > cards. This was mentioned in the manual. However, I have now updated the > manual to have the correct default and to more clearly point out the > potential problems. > > > Beacuse I have another windows FD on the same installation, with the > > same version of bacula, and this one was going fine with the default (MNB > > not specified), what I believe is that the windows setup has been built > > with a different default (maybe 65536), and this setting may be fine only > > in specific situations. What I mean, is that probably 32768 is fine for > > almost any card, but 65536 may be fine only for cards that support this > > buffer size. > > What I know now is that explicitly setting the buffer to 32768 on the > > bacula fd will work. After finding this, I did the same on other 3 > > installations where I had similar problems, and it worked! Thanx to > > everyone that tried to help me. > > Thanks to you for discovering it ... > Best regards, > Kern > > > Gabriele. > > Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. > > Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 > > Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY > > http://www.sonicle.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
