Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
Thomas Traeger wrote: Excellent point. The servers that are slowest to transfer are also the busiest, my front end web server and my mail gateways (Av and spam filtering). That is certainly something to look further into. I could try turning off compression for one cycle to prove the theory. Thanks, DAve You might also try reducing the compression level to gzip1/2/3 (default is gzip5), especially on the VLAN this might help. In my case all servers have a 1GBit connection to the backup system and software compression is useless as long as you backup on a tape drive with hardware compression. Compression was the culprit! After much testing and trying specific clients and compression levels it seems that I can transfer uncompressed data across a 1gb network faster than I can compress the data on the client. This was tested last on a very busy web server, which really is never not busy. The overhead of compression exceeded the gains of transfering data compressed. So depending on what load/cpu/ram a client has, compression should be altered. It is a trade off of speed verses storage space. I can adjust each job as required. Just one more way Bacula's complexity pays off. Thanks everyone. DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Did you just remove compression from the definition? I'm still looking for a way to EXPLICITLY disable compression. DAve wrote: Thomas Traeger wrote: Excellent point. The servers that are slowest to transfer are also the busiest, my front end web server and my mail gateways (Av and spam filtering). That is certainly something to look further into. I could try turning off compression for one cycle to prove the theory. Thanks, DAve You might also try reducing the compression level to gzip1/2/3 (default is gzip5), especially on the VLAN this might help. In my case all servers have a 1GBit connection to the backup system and software compression is useless as long as you backup on a tape drive with hardware compression. Compression was the culprit! After much testing and trying specific clients and compression levels it seems that I can transfer uncompressed data across a 1gb network faster than I can compress the data on the client. This was tested last on a very busy web server, which really is never not busy. The overhead of compression exceeded the gains of transfering data compressed. So depending on what load/cpu/ram a client has, compression should be altered. It is a trade off of speed verses storage space. I can adjust each job as required. Just one more way Bacula's complexity pays off. Thanks everyone. DAve - -- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer III |$| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFW0fsmb+gadEcsb4RAis2AKCR+ZuQTIZ2Z8Dt3Rs7JRqCKJefnwCfchWm WHsvjSflzU6WtA46T7PrNpY= =8YrC -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
Ryan Novosielski wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Did you just remove compression from the definition?
I simply commented out the compression option in the FileSet section.
### FILESETS
FileSet {
Name = Web6
Include {
Options {
signature = MD5
#compression=GZIP
}
File = /data/data
File = /data/cgi-bin
File = /data/cgivirt
File = /data/webalizer
File = /usr/local/scripts
File = /data/movies
File = /usr/local/etc
File = /usr/local/db/mysql
File = /etc
}
Exclude {
File = /etc/dnscache/log/main
File = /tmp
File = /.snap
}
}
The next report stated no compression.
FD Files Written: 1,501
SD Files Written: 1,501
FD Bytes Written: 2,699,586,875
SD Bytes Written: 2,699,798,983
Rate: 12978.8 KB/s
Software Compression: None
Easy.
DAve
I'm still looking for a way to EXPLICITLY disable compression.
DAve wrote:
Thomas Traeger wrote:
Excellent point. The servers that are slowest to transfer are also the
busiest, my front end web server and my mail gateways (Av and spam
filtering).
That is certainly something to look further into. I could try turning
off compression for one cycle to prove the theory.
Thanks,
DAve
You might also try reducing the compression level to gzip1/2/3 (default
is gzip5), especially on the VLAN this might help. In my case all
servers have a 1GBit connection to the backup system and software
compression is useless as long as you backup on a tape drive with
hardware compression.
Compression was the culprit! After much testing and trying specific
clients and compression levels it seems that I can transfer uncompressed
data across a 1gb network faster than I can compress the data on the
client. This was tested last on a very busy web server, which really is
never not busy. The overhead of compression exceeded the gains of
transfering data compressed.
So depending on what load/cpu/ram a client has, compression should be
altered. It is a trade off of speed verses storage space. I can adjust
each job as required.
Just one more way Bacula's complexity pays off. Thanks everyone.
DAve
--
Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a
logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos
for other non-international holidays, but nothing for
Veterans?
Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
Excellent point. The servers that are slowest to transfer are also the busiest, my front end web server and my mail gateways (Av and spam filtering). That is certainly something to look further into. I could try turning off compression for one cycle to prove the theory. Thanks, DAve You might also try reducing the compression level to gzip1/2/3 (default is gzip5), especially on the VLAN this might help. In my case all servers have a 1GBit connection to the backup system and software compression is useless as long as you backup on a tape drive with hardware compression. Thomas - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
Good morning, I have a question concerning reported data transfer rates between the clients and the storage servers. All the above servers are connected to my NOC clients via a 1gb network. The servers are connected to several other clients via 100mb network and a 13mb VLAN. Data rates for backups can vary widely. I have all clients running compression and the backup reports show compression results, varies of course based on the data type. I also have concurrency set to four, which is working. Some examples, 1gb network = FD Bytes Written: 215,582,592 SD Bytes Written: 215,582,742 Rate: 2245.7 KB/s Software Compression: 62.0 % FD Bytes Written: 510,861,802 SD Bytes Written: 511,074,097 Rate: 577.2 KB/s Software Compression: 80.0 % FD Bytes Written: 77,243,969 SD Bytes Written: 78,145,766 Rate: 351.1 KB/s Software Compression: 84.4 % 100mb network = FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 % FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 % 13mb VLAN = FD Bytes Written: 35,879,089,133 SD Bytes Written: 35,910,549,602 Rate: 1385.2 KB/s Software Compression: 41.1 % FD Bytes Written: 9,803,307,103 SD Bytes Written: 9,809,416,473 Rate: 1273.0 KB/s Software Compression: 57.3 % FD Bytes Written: 434,184,031 SD Bytes Written: 434,204,782 Rate: 943.9 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 % I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb network to be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network are all FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running on FreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processes running. Any ideas where I might start looking? DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
On 11/10/06, DAve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning,I have a question concerning reported data transfer rates between theclients and the storage servers. All the above servers are connected tomy NOC clients via a 1gb network. The servers are connected to several other clients via 100mb network and a 13mb VLAN.Data rates for backups can vary widely. I have all clients runningcompression and the backup reports show compression results, varies ofcourse based on the data type. I also have concurrency set to four, which is working.Some examples,1gb network= FD Bytes Written: 215,582,592 SD Bytes Written: 215,582,742 Rate: 2245.7 KB/s Software Compression: 62.0 % FD Bytes Written: 510,861,802 SD Bytes Written: 511,074,097 Rate: 577.2 KB/s Software Compression: 80.0 % FD Bytes Written: 77,243,969 SD Bytes Written: 78,145,766 Rate: 351.1 KB/s Software Compression: 84.4 %100mb network= FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 % FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 %13mb VLAN= FD Bytes Written: 35,879,089,133 SD Bytes Written: 35,910,549,602 Rate: 1385.2 KB/s Software Compression: 41.1 % FD Bytes Written: 9,803,307,103 SD Bytes Written: 9,809,416,473 Rate: 1273.0 KB/s Software Compression: 57.3 % FD Bytes Written: 434,184,031 SD Bytes Written: 434,204,782 Rate: 943.9 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 %I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb networkto be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network areall FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running onFreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processesrunning.Any ideas where I might start looking? I believe your biggest bottleneck is not the networks speed but the software compression speed as this only a few MB/s max even on the fastest pc you can get. Tape drives are able to compress data at very high speeds because they have specialized hardware (not just a cpu and memory) for that purpose. John - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
John Drescher wrote: On 11/10/06, DAve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning, I have a question concerning reported data transfer rates between the clients and the storage servers. All the above servers are connected to my NOC clients via a 1gb network. The servers are connected to several other clients via 100mb network and a 13mb VLAN. Data rates for backups can vary widely. I have all clients running compression and the backup reports show compression results, varies of course based on the data type. I also have concurrency set to four, which is working. Some examples, 1gb network = FD Bytes Written: 215,582,592 SD Bytes Written: 215,582,742 Rate: 2245.7 KB/s Software Compression: 62.0 % FD Bytes Written: 510,861,802 SD Bytes Written: 511,074,097 Rate: 577.2 KB/s Software Compression: 80.0 % FD Bytes Written: 77,243,969 SD Bytes Written: 78,145,766 Rate: 351.1 KB/s Software Compression: 84.4 % 100mb network = FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 % FD Bytes Written: 3,486,750,378 SD Bytes Written: 3,488,784,689 Rate: 2391.5 KB/s Software Compression: 42.4 % 13mb VLAN = FD Bytes Written: 35,879,089,133 SD Bytes Written: 35,910,549,602 Rate: 1385.2 KB/s Software Compression: 41.1 % FD Bytes Written: 9,803,307,103 SD Bytes Written: 9,809,416,473 Rate: 1273.0 KB/s Software Compression: 57.3 % FD Bytes Written: 434,184,031 SD Bytes Written: 434,204,782 Rate: 943.9 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 % I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb network to be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network are all FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running on FreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processes running. Any ideas where I might start looking? I believe your biggest bottleneck is not the networks speed but the software compression speed as this only a few MB/s max even on the fastest pc you can get. Tape drives are able to compress data at very high speeds because they have specialized hardware (not just a cpu and memory) for that purpose. John Excellent point. The servers that are slowest to transfer are also the busiest, my front end web server and my mail gateways (Av and spam filtering). That is certainly something to look further into. I could try turning off compression for one cycle to prove the theory. Thanks, DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DAve wrote: Good morning, I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb network to be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network are all FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running on FreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processes running. Any ideas where I might start looking? There are a couple of things that jump out at me. Compression seems to be affecting your rates a certain amount -- that probably makes sense, as it takes some time to do compression. If you can, I'd be curious to see what happens if you turn compression off and try the same numbers. That said, your speed issues might be due to A) spooling or B) misconfigured duplex settings on your machine. Check netstat -ian or your platform's equivalent to make sure your network settings are OK. As far as the spooling goes, you could try without to see what happens (if you are using it), but basically my take on that effect was that's the way it goes -- you spool and your rate drops. I'm not thrilled that I no longer have a good way to check the SD to tape data transfer rate, but as long as the backups run in an acceptable amount of time, I stay happy. - -- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer III |$| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFVLDxmb+gadEcsb4RAhpWAJ0cG8KPP5SmnY8XWyGv80OU8CDCuACeK0zn PuKB65lC6TaN7Akq0Cf/XtI= =SsjZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
pedro moreno wrote: On 11/10/06, Ryan Novosielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DAve wrote: Good morning, I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb network to be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network are all FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running on FreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processes running. Any ideas where I might start looking? There are a couple of things that jump out at me. Compression seems to be affecting your rates a certain amount -- that probably makes sense, as it takes some time to do compression. If you can, I'd be curious to see what happens if you turn compression off and try the same numbers. That said, your speed issues might be due to A) spooling or B) misconfigured duplex settings on your machine. Check netstat -ian or your platform's equivalent to make sure your network settings are OK. As far as the spooling goes, you could try without to see what happens (if you are using it), but basically my take on that effect was that's the way it goes -- you spool and your rate drops. I'm not thrilled that I no longer have a good way to check the SD to tape data transfer rate, but as long as the backups run in an acceptable amount of time, I stay happy. - -- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer III |$| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFVLDxmb+gadEcsb4RAhpWAJ0cG8KPP5SmnY8XWyGv80OU8CDCuACeK0zn PuKB65lC6TaN7Akq0Cf/XtI= =SsjZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users What help me get some extra rate was: Network Buffer Size, but it took me 1 week testing all my clients and decide wich value use on each client, before i setup the production server. Greetings!!! P.S. My Backup server is FreeBSD to. Can you offer any guidelines as to how best determine the buffer size? DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Data transfer rates
On 11/10/06, DAve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pedro moreno wrote: On 11/10/06, Ryan Novosielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 DAve wrote: Good morning, I'm not sure how to interpret the variation in rates. I don't think I have a problem, though I would expect the backups across the 1gb network to be far faster than they are. The backups across the 1gb network are all FreeBSD boxes, the backups across the 100mb and the 13mb VLAN are Windows and RedHat servers. The dir, and the sd clients are running on FreeBSD servers dedicated to that task, there are no other processes running. Any ideas where I might start looking? There are a couple of things that jump out at me. Compression seems to be affecting your rates a certain amount -- that probably makes sense, as it takes some time to do compression. If you can, I'd be curious to see what happens if you turn compression off and try the same numbers. That said, your speed issues might be due to A) spooling or B) misconfigured duplex settings on your machine. Check netstat -ian or your platform's equivalent to make sure your network settings are OK. As far as the spooling goes, you could try without to see what happens (if you are using it), but basically my take on that effect was that's the way it goes -- you spool and your rate drops. I'm not thrilled that I no longer have a good way to check the SD to tape data transfer rate, but as long as the backups run in an acceptable amount of time, I stay happy. - -- __ __ __ |Y#| || |\/| |\ |\ || |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer III |$| |__| || |__/ | \| _| |novosirj@ umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFVLDxmb+gadEcsb4RAhpWAJ0cG8KPP5SmnY8XWyGv80OU8CDCuACeK0zn PuKB65lC6TaN7Akq0Cf/XtI= =SsjZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users What help me get some extra rate was: Network Buffer Size, but it took me 1 week testing all my clients and decide wich value use on each client, before i setup the production server. Greetings!!! P.S . My Backup server is FreeBSD to.Can you offer any guidelines as to how best determine the buffer size?DAve--Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have alogo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing forVeterans?Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.-Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easierDownload IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users Edit bacula-sd.conf , change Network Buffer Size, restart the sd service, them edit bacula-fd.conf for each client restart the fd-service, do 3 backups for each client, get the average. Starting from 8192 to 262144. I didnt found any other way to made this, but this was my test server, the same machine all this was to get the best values and them setup the server to production. Some NT4 boxes work good with 65536 another 32768, Linux RH9 65536, none of the clients support 262144 even FreeBSD 6.1. Was time-consume, but get me some extra rate.Greetings. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
