Hello, just small FYI, after switching from 9.x.x to 11.x.x it seems that speed problem has been fixed.
Cejka Rudolf wrote (2020/04/30): > Josh Fisher wrote (2020/04/23): > > On 4/22/2020 12:23 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote: > > > Hello, > > > I have exactly the same problem: Too slow filesystem traversal by > > > Bacula Windows Client. I think that it has to be some problem with > > > Bacula Client cross compilation (low level of compiler optimalization?), > > > some setting or some other little thing, because if I switch the > > > client to Bareos, incremental backup is usually two to three times > > > faster than with Bacula client in my environment. I tried many > > > versions of clients including the oldest clients from times, when > > > projects "splitted", but behavior of all versions has been the > > > same: All Bacula clients were two to three times slower than all > > > Bareos clients for incremental backups in my environment. Very > > > disappointing and I did not find anything yet, what could change that. > > > > Are you using the same Maximum Network Buffer size on both? People have > > reported issues in the past with the default 64k Maximum Network Buffer Size > > on Windows. Try reducing that to 32k. > > Yes, I tried both. Default and 32768. With no differences for Bacula Windows > Client for incremental backup with little data. -- Rudolf Cejka <cejkar at fit.vut.cz> https://www.fit.vut.cz/~cejkar Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Information Technology Bozetechova 1/2, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
