"Bacula sucks the vital essence from your computer" says the slogan... and somehow it now looks true to me (though not the way it was meant to)
After years of some experience with Linux&Bacula combination, I finally started making some experiments with Windows client. After a few very (not so nicely) surprising experiencies in production environment, I set up a testbech with oldish 2.8 GHz (800 MHz FSB) Dual-Core P4 and 1 GB of memory, pata-interfaced 80 GB had drive, gigabit ethernet. Testbench was running a clean Windows XP sp3 with Winbacula 3.0.3a. No antivirus stuff (yet), no real applications, nothing to cause any extra mess. Fileset contains basically /WINDOWS/system32 directory. It's something I could find from every system I tried before this testbench. The very basic test result: Elapsed time: 2 mins 35 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 4,648 SD Files Written: 4,648 FD Bytes Written: 664,739,011 (664.7 MB) SD Bytes Written: 665,458,318 (665.4 MB) Rate: 4288.6 KB/s Software Compression: None VSS: yes Encryption: no Accurate: no Then, after adding lowest-level (GZIP1) compression: Elapsed time: 2 mins 43 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 4,648 SD Files Written: 4,648 FD Bytes Written: 308,509,378 (308.5 MB) SD Bytes Written: 309,228,685 (309.2 MB) Rate: 1892.7 KB/s Software Compression: 53.6 % VSS: yes Encryption: no Accurate: no Basically, it takes the same amount of real time to run the same job, and some more cpu load, but no peak in workstation's cpu load meter exceeded 50%. Any ideas what is the bottleneck here? I think 1GB of memory should be enough for XP alone. Some glue makes me think about the disk, but this rate is a decade below what to expect from even that old hard disk. Finally, for reference purposes I installed antivirus sw (NOD32) to the testbench, it drops only about 10% of the rate above: Elapsed time: 2 mins 51 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 4,657 SD Files Written: 4,657 FD Bytes Written: 665,372,665 (665.3 MB) SD Bytes Written: 666,093,882 (666.0 MB) Rate: 3891.1 KB/s Software Compression: None VSS: yes Encryption: no Accurate: no My Bacula DIR/SD is a CentOS 5.4 box, old 32-bit piece of junk, a lower speed hw than the workstation described above. As a reference, below is a sample of backup from a linux box (64-bit CentOS), it's of the same class with rates when backing up the SD/DIR machine itself -which obviously limits the rate to 11-12MB/s level. Anyway, the samples above were clearly not limited by the Bacula server. Elapsed time: 8 mins 1 sec Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 7 SD Files Written: 7 FD Bytes Written: 5,311,971,015 (5.311 GB) SD Bytes Written: 5,311,971,759 (5.311 GB) Rate: 11043.6 KB/s Software Compression: None VSS: no Encryption: no Accurate: no So, what's that tough with my Windows clients? -- TiN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies. http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users