Hmmmm. I got 2.2 installed here from source, and was expecting to see the big performance gains I had heard about. Strangely, at least in my application, 2.2 seems to be /significantly slower/ than 2.02.
These results are from the server I back up that takes the longest. Several million small files are part of the mix. I used spooling to disk then to LTO-3 tape over gigabit in both instances (hardware unchanged, the only change was bacula 2.02 to bacula 2.2). Yes, there was more data written on the 2.2 backup, but still the rate in KB/s has gone down. Under 2.02: Elapsed time: 5 hours 55 mins 55 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 12,762,054 SD Files Written: 12,762,054 FD Bytes Written: 69,186,874,016 (69.18 GB) SD Bytes Written: 71,578,504,057 (71.57 GB) Rate: 3239.8 KB/s Under 2.2: Elapsed time: 7 hours 17 mins 54 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 13,658,265 SD Files Written: 13,658,265 FD Bytes Written: 71,676,136,490 (71.67 GB) SD Bytes Written: 74,236,418,395 (74.23 GB) Rate: 2728.0 KB/s -- Do you think that when someone asked George Washington for ID he just whipped out a quarter? - Steven Wright -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
