> I'd say your initial tls overhead was due to slow cipher
it's very strange as I have a fastest CPU on both of sides
storage: Intel Xeon CPU E3-1245 V2 @ 3.40GHz
client: Intel Core i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
And as I can see in the top output the CPU is not bottleneck at all, imho
On the storage I'm using the following filesystem
/dev/sda5 on /data type xfs (rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,noquota)
# cd /data
# dd if=/dev/zero of=tmp.file bs=8192 count=1000000 oflag=direct
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
8192000000 bytes (8.2 GB) copied, 65.5126 s, 125 MB/s
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaz...@bmrb.wisc.edu>
wrote:
> On 05/12/2015 01:50 PM, Alex Domoradov wrote:
> >> Where's 23MB/s come from?
> > from bacula-web - http://i.imgur.com/pEQwCvI.png
> >
> >> I get 200+MB/s on disk writes to raidz zfs backed by cheap "desktop"
> > drives
> > It would depend on "type" of files as I understood. I have a lot (~11M)
> of
> > small files 20-50 Kbyte. So I don't believe that you can get 200 Mb/s on
> > such small files ;)
>
> Yeah, OK. I see thing like
>
> > 1-May 20:05 starfish-sd JobId 7: Committing spooled data to Volume
> "BMRB-0001". Despooling 54,630,677 bytes ...
> > 11-May 20:05 starfish-sd JobId 7: Despooling elapsed time = 00:00:01,
> Transfer rate = 54.63 M Bytes/second
> > 11-May 20:05 starfish-sd JobId 7: Elapsed time=00:00:08, Transfer
> rate=6.791 M Bytes/second
>
> in the log and I've no idea what any of it means: the spool is a
> mirrored ssd so "6.791 M Bytes/second" is not the disk write speed. The
> "54.63 M Bytes/second" just means "I despooled everything I had in a
> second or less". On large sets where it despools the entire 50GB file
> volume, reported ssd to spinning rust speed is
>
> > 12-May 00:29 starfish-sd JobId 13: Writing spooled data to Volume.
> Despooling 49,807,364,491 bytes ...
> > 12-May 00:31 starfish-sd JobId 13: End of medium on Volume "BMRB-0002"
> Bytes=49,807,326,888 Blocks=772,063 at 12-May-2015 00:31.
> > 12-May 00:31 starfish-sd JobId 13: Despooling elapsed time = 00:02:26,
> Transfer rate = 341.1 M Bytes/second
>
> -- that does sound reasonable.
>
> Anyway, I'd say your initial tls overhead was due to slow cipher and you
> shouldn't have a problem setting things up so that encryption overhead
> is masked out by the storage write speed or the rate the clients can
> produce the data or whatever the current bottleneck is.
>
> --
> Dimitri Maziuk
> Programmer/sysadmin
> BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
