On 2020-04-20 12:37, Andrew Watkins wrote:
Hi,
Still not having much luck with speed of my Windows backup, so any
pointers?
Even when I used Networker backup windows was slower but not this bad!
Solaris Client Full: many filesystems
Elapsed time: 10 hours 31 mins 14 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 5,670,614
SD Files Written: 5,670,614
FD Bytes Written: 775,767,526,417 (775.7 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 776,760,355,024 (776.7 GB)
Rate: 20482.9 KB/s
Software Compression: None
Comm Line Compression: 75.0% 4.0:1
Snapshot/VSS: no
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
Windows Client Full: 2 filesystems with many exclusions (exclude
profiles, etc)
Elapsed time: 22 hours 39 mins 41 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 3,653,666
SD Files Written: 3,653,666
FD Bytes Written: 303,603,777,832 (303.6 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 304,379,400,097 (304.3 GB)
Rate: 3721.5 KB/s
Software Compression: None
Comm Line Compression: 30.2% 1.4:1
Snapshot/VSS: yes
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
On 4/3/2020 5:35 PM, Peter Milesson wrote:
On 2020-04-01 11:28, Andrew Watkins wrote:
Hello,
Just started using Bacula and at this time (early stages) I find my
UNIX/Solaris full backups are running at a good speed, but our
window server is slow. There is a chance it is just the number of
files (Yes, I am ignoring profiles). My questions:
1) I have added "Maximum Concurrent Jobs" to my clients FileDaemon,
but is there a way to prove that Windows client is using it?
2) Any web links to how I can monitor a client backup, to examine
what is happening.
Thanks
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
When you brought it up, I had a look at my setup. I'm backing up both
Linux and Windows servers.
The Linux server backups are running at about 30 Mbyte/s (2x1Gbit
NICs) with line compression, whereas the Windows server backups are
running at about 22 Mbytes/s (2x10Gbit NICs) without compression. The
connection is 10 Gbit from all servers to the Bacula backup server.
The values mentioned are for full monthly server backups (a couple of
TBs).
What I did notice however, is that small incremental backups are an
order of magnitude slower for the Windows servers, compared to the
Linux servers.
I'm not going to speculate, but compression would probably speed up
things somewhat for the Windows backups, however not significantly.
Also, VSS snapshots under Windows may have a huge impact on the
overall performance for smaller backup sets.
For me, the current performance is sufficient, but there is certainly
lots of room for tweaking. I've been running this setup for about 9
years now, just improving the hardware now and then. Don't fix what's
working...
Best regards,
Peter
Thanks,
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Here's part of the log from one Windows server, the total volume is
quite similar to yours, but you seem to have got much smaller files:
Elapsed time: 3 hours 57 mins 51 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 368,404
SD Files Written: 368,404
FD Bytes Written: 318,235,741,624 (318.2 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 318,313,424,664 (318.3 GB)
Rate: 22299.5 KB/s
Software Compression: None
Comm Line Compression: None
Snapshot/VSS: yes
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
The server is a HPE ProLiant DL-180 Gen9 with SAS-drives (15000 rpm) in
RAID-5, Windows 2016
A couple of points to look at:
* Network performance (I have got a 10Gbit link directly from the
server, so compression probably doesn't make sense)
* Storage performance (I have got 4 SATA disks (7200 rpm) in RAID 10
as virtual tapes)
I have noticed a similar performance as yours when making incremental
backups, but those backups are less than 10Gb in volume.
Best regards,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
