On 07/19/2015 06:17 PM, Holger Hampel | RA Consulting wrote: > Hello, > > Last weekend, the backup stalled (also the backups before, but nobody was > there to care for it): > > 657: Jul 12 10:37:13 INFO: status: 77% (57894961152/75161927680), sparse 3% > (2493112320), duration 14059, 15/15 MB/s 657: Jul 12 10:45:29 INFO: status: > 78% (58630930432/75161927680), sparse 3% (2497314816), duration 14555, 1/1 > MB/s 657: Jul 12 10:50:34 INFO: status: 79% (59411005440/75161927680), sparse > 3% (2497314816), duration 14860, 2/2 MB/s 657: Jul 12 10:54:53 INFO: status: > 80% (60162506752/75161927680), sparse 3% (2509971456), duration 15119, 2/2 > MB/s 657: Jul 12 10:55:15 INFO: status: 81% (60890480640/75161927680), sparse > 3% (2518409216), duration 15141, 33/32 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:03:05 INFO: > status: 82% (61646045184/75161927680), sparse 3% (2518618112), duration > 15611, 1/1 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:06:07 INFO: status: 83% > (62387257344/75161927680), sparse 3% (2518822912), duration 15793, 4/4 MB/s > 657: Jul 12 11:09:22 INFO: status: 84% (63160647680/75161927680), sparse 3% > (2519183360), duration 15988, 3/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:13:33 INFO: status: 85% > (63918243840/75161927680), sparse
3% (2519449600), duration 16239, 3/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:19:26 INFO: status: 86% (64648904704/75161927680), sparse 3% (2524684288), duration 16592, 2/2 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:23:00 INFO: status: 87% (65413185536/75161927680), sparse 3% (2542366720), duration 16806, 3/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:25:41 INFO: status: 88% (66164162560/75161927680), sparse 3% (2704044032), duration 16967, 4/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:28:49 INFO: status: 89% (66912124928/75161927680), sparse 3% (2730418176), duration 17155, 3/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:32:25 INFO: status: 90% (67659366400/75161927680), sparse 3% (2752782336), duration 17371, 3/3 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:34:40 INFO: status: 91% (68420632576/75161927680), sparse 3% (2766213120), duration 17506, 5/5 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:39:33 INFO: status: 92% (69151490048/75161927680), sparse 3% (2789863424), duration 17799, 2/2 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:42:29 INFO: status: 93% (69910659072/75161927680), sparse 3% (2809716736), duration 17975, 4/4 MB/s 657: Jul 12 11:52:13 INFO: status: 94 % (70690799616/75161927680), sparse 3% (2822275072), duration 18559, 1/1 MB/s > > After backup completion I tested the speed of NFS access (also using > different blocksizes without siginificant changes): > > root@gaia:~# dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/pve/Backup-Chaos/test bs=8192 count=10000 > 10000+0 Datensätze ein > 10000+0 Datensätze aus > 81920000 Bytes (82 MB) kopiert, 16,086 s, 3,1 MB/s > > On another node (same hardware and config) I'm testing the 3.10 kernel: > > root@tartaros:~# dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/pve/Backup-Chaos/test bs=8192 > count=10000 > 10000+0 Datensätze ein > 10000+0 Datensätze aus > 81920000 Bytes (82 MB) kopiert, 0,950729 s, 86,2 MB/s > > So I upgraded the kernel on the first node and: > > root@nyx:~# dd if=/dev/sda of=/mnt/pve/Backup-Chaos/test bs=8192 count=10000 > 10000+0 Datensätze ein > 10000+0 Datensätze aus > 81920000 Bytes (82 MB) kopiert, 0,912615 s, 89,8 MB/s > > > It seems independend of using IPv4/v6 and another machine (on pve-test, other > hardware) without bonding has no problems accessing the same NFS-Server. > Hi Holger I just tested the speed of nfs writes from two nodes, one running with 2.6.32 and the other one with 3.10, and I don't see any differences with bonnie++ here. >From both I get a speed of 70 MB/s ( 72701 in output under) in sequential writes. 2.6.32 nfs client: root@pve3:/mnt/pve/nas-write# bonnie++ -u manu -d . Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP pve3 2G 2125 96 72701 2 42946 2 +++++ +++ 97566 4 2059 20 Emmanuel _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
