[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hello everyone! After applying the correct settings and restart the good services here are the results ... :P They are catastrophic! My full this weekend took 8 hours more! I think problems come from my little spools, 24GB per drive and 3Gb by jobs (I have 8 jobs) Maybe I miscalculated my spools ... +-- |This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hello, 2013/10/7 bdelagree bacula-fo...@backupcentral.com Hello everyone! After applying the correct settings and restart the good services here are the results ... :P They are catastrophic! I do not follow this thread from the beginning, so I could be wrong about some tips. You have a 11M files in single backup job. If your job name is not misleading all your files are located on NFS share. Right? If yes, this is your main bottleneck. NFS is not the best protocol for this job. If your NFS is a some kind of NAS array then you can speed up your backup with NDMP. Next, you should implement Bacula VirtualFull backup, which avoid any next Full backup on the client. After that all your jobs will be all Incremental and your problem with full will gone. My full this weekend took 8 hours more! I think problems come from my little spools, 24GB per drive and 3Gb by jobs (I have 8 jobs) Data spool is required for tape drive only. You need to manually tune the best job spool size for best performance. From my experience on one of my systems I have 8GB/Job which is better then 32GB/Job spool which was before. The most important, your job spool size can be 8GB too, because you limit overall spool size to 24GB. It will work. best regards -- Radosław Korzeniewski rados...@korzeniewski.net -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
I do not follow this thread from the beginning, so I could be wrong about some tips. You have a 11M files in single backup job. If your job name is not misleading all your files are located on NFS share. Right? If yes, this is your main bottleneck. NFS is not the best protocol for this job. If your NFS is a some kind of NAS array then you can speed up your backup with NDMP. Hi, i don't use NFS share, i put bacula client on this server, I'll look at how to implement NDMP Next, you should implement Bacula VirtualFull backup, which avoid any next Full backup on the client. After that all your jobs will be all Incremental and your problem with full will gone. I do not know VirtualFull backup, I will document about this Data spool is required for tape drive only. You need to manually tune the best job spool size for best performance. From my experience on one of my systems I have 8GB/Job which is better then 32GB/Job spool which was before. The most important, your job spool size can be 8GB too, because you limit overall spool size to 24GB. It will work. I'll try it, I can do the test quickly I'll let you know +-- |This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hello, 2013/10/7 bdelagree bacula-fo...@backupcentral.com I do not follow this thread from the beginning, so I could be wrong about some tips. You have a 11M files in single backup job. If your job name is not misleading all your files are located on NFS share. Right? If yes, this is your main bottleneck. NFS is not the best protocol for this job. If your NFS is a some kind of NAS array then you can speed up your backup with NDMP. Hi, i don't use NFS share, i put bacula client on this server, I'll look at how to implement NDMP If you are accessing files to backup locally (you have installed a bacula-fd on nfs server), so you do not need to implement NDMP. Next, you should implement Bacula VirtualFull backup, which avoid any next Full backup on the client. After that all your jobs will be all Incremental and your problem with full will gone. I do not know VirtualFull backup, I will document about this Check Bacula documentation for that. best regards -- Radosław Korzeniewski rados...@korzeniewski.net -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hi everyone! The DataSpooling has not changed my backup. (See the end of this post) 1day and 14hours for 390Gb :( By cons I just saw that on Friday I restarted only StorageDaemon, was it also restart Director and FileDaemon? Do you think that enabling compression could improve backup when there are many small files? thank you --- 28-Sep 05:57 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Start Backup JobId 378, Job=srv-nfs-sm-macsoft.2013-09-27_20.00.00_10 28-Sep 05:57 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Using Device Drive-0 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Job write elapsed time = 38:39:42, Transfer rate = 2.811 M Bytes/second 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [x86_64-linux-3.2.0-4-amd64] (local build) 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: TapeAlert: OK 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: Error Counter logging not supported 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: 29-Sep 20:37 srv-infra-sm-sd JobId 378: Alert: Last n error events log page 29-Sep 20:45 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Bacula srv-infra-sm-dir 5.2.6 (21Feb12): Build OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu debian 7.0 JobId: 378 Job:srv-nfs-sm-macsoft.2013-09-27_20.00.00_10 Backup Level: Full Client: srv-nfs-sm-fd 5.2.6 (21Feb12) x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,debian,7.0 FileSet:srv-nfs-sm-macsoft 2013-09-20 20:00:00 Pool: Default (From Job resource) Catalog:MyCatalog (From Client resource) Storage:Autochanger (From Job resource) Scheduled time: 27-Sep-2013 20:00:00 Start time: 28-Sep-2013 05:57:23 End time: 29-Sep-2013 20:45:25 Elapsed time: 1 day 14 hours 48 mins 2 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 11,984,928 SD Files Written: 11,984,928 FD Bytes Written: 388,744,287,257 (388.7 GB) SD Bytes Written: 391,295,285,064 (391.2 GB) Rate: 2783.1 KB/s Software Compression: None VSS:no Encryption: no Accurate: no Volume name(s): 16L5 Volume Session Id: 7 Volume Session Time:1380268256 Last Volume Bytes: 1,012,484,680,704 (1.012 TB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK 29-Sep 20:45 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Begin pruning Jobs older than 6 months . 29-Sep 20:45 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: No Jobs found to prune. 29-Sep 20:45 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Begin pruning Files. 29-Sep 20:51 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: Pruned Files from 2 Jobs for client srv-nfs-sm-fd from catalog. 29-Sep 20:51 srv-infra-sm-dir JobId 378: End auto prune. [Crying or Very sad] [Crying or Very sad] [Crying or Very sad] [Embarassed] +-- |This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
The DataSpooling has not changed my backup. (See the end of this post) 1day and 14hours for 390Gb :( By cons I just saw that on Friday I restarted only StorageDaemon, was it also restart Director and FileDaemon? Do you think that enabling compression could improve backup when there are many small files? I would expect adding software compression to slow the backup down. Does your source raid array have a cache? Reading many small files causes a lot of seek operations. John -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:07:00 -0700, bdelagree said: Hi everyone! The DataSpooling has not changed my backup. (See the end of this post) 1day and 14hours for 390Gb :( By cons I just saw that on Friday I restarted only StorageDaemon, was it also restart Director and FileDaemon? You need to restart the Director (or at least use the reload command) to change spooling (the log you posted was not using spooling). __Martin -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hi everyone! Sorry for my short absence but I've been busy with other little problem. I had to create a virtual machine under OS9 for one of my users I had forgotten how the old system was very basic ! : p Finally tonight is my monthly Full Backup. I wish to change my jobs and set up the DataSpooling. I will give you the result Monday Thank you for your help +-- |This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Just for you information, here are the modifications:
For the NFS server I created two jobs, one for system and another one for the
directory that contains the millions of files.
I created the directory /var/lib/spool/drive0 and /var/lib/spool/drive1
I then did a chown-R bacula: bacula /var/lib/spool
In the sections Device of bacula-sd.conf I added these options:
Device {
Name = Drive-0
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 3gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
Device {
Name = Drive-1
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 3gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive1
}
+--
|This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
+--
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Am 23.09.2013 08:47, schrieb bdelagree: Hello, This summer we invested in a PowerVault TL2000 library with two LTO5 drives to safeguard our various servers. Today two of my servers take to save a lot because they contain many small files for low volume (see the bottom of post) All my other servers backups quickly (20,000 KB/s to 30,000 KB/s) As explained in the documentation for Bacula I added the following option in the StorageDaemon and FileDaemon of these servers: Maximum Network Buffer Size = 65536 But that did not change anything ... Did I forget something? Something wrong? There's an other options that I have not seen? as I wrote earlier on our LTO4 tape changer for speeding up the building of the directory tree on restoring I replaced the default configuration file /etc/my.cnf by another predefined /usr/share/mysql/my-huge.cnf I suppose this might accelerate the backup also. For speeding up the backup I provided 1500GB diskspace for buffering - running all backup jobs parallel that are writing to the same cassette set. This did help a lot. -- Ralf Brinkmann -- October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Zitat von bdelagree bacula-fo...@backupcentral.com:
Hello,
Thank you for the quick response.
My library is connected to a dedicated server only to services (PDC,
DHCP, DNS, LDAP, and Bacula)
This server is not designed to host files, so he has little space.
In addition, the MySql database is already 35Gb...
I can dedicate reasonably 50Gb on this one.
The size of the database mostly depend on the number of
files/directories and your retention policy.
Is there one DataSpooling for bacula, or one by drive ?
You should set it by drive and calculate for the number of parallel
jobs you are using.
Knowing I have a lot of servers to backup (8 servers for about 2.8
Tb of data), is that enough or i need to find another system for
Data Spooling?
df -h from my srv-infra-sm
Filesystem Size Used
Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs 20G 836M
20G 5% /
udev 10M 0
10M 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.6G 1.7M
1.6G 1% /run
/dev/disk/by-uuid/465b04fb-de46-409b-928a-ec01ba98373e 20G 836M
20G 5% /
tmpfs 5.0M 4.0K
5.0M 1% /run/lock
tmpfs 1.6G 8.0K
1.6G 1% /run/shm
/dev/sda4 109G 40G
69G 37% /var
tmpfs 7.9G 0
7.9G 0% /tmp
New options in bacula-sd.conf (thinking that we need a spool by drive)
Device {
Name = Drive-0
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
Device {
Name = Drive-1
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
If you backup all 8 machines concurrently you should set your Job
Spool Size to something around available diskspace / 8. Also be
aware that you need additional spool space for spooling attributes
which is enabled by default when using data spooling. Think of data
spooling as some form of cache to pack things together before
committing to database and tape.
Regards
Andreas
--
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hello, This summer we invested in a PowerVault TL2000 library with two LTO5 drives to safeguard our various servers. Today two of my servers take to save a lot because they contain many small files for low volume (see the bottom of post) All my other servers backups quickly (20,000 KB/s to 30,000 KB/s) As explained in the documentation for Bacula I added the following option in the StorageDaemon and FileDaemon of these servers: Maximum Network Buffer Size = 65536 But that did not change anything ... Did I forget something? Something wrong? There's an other options that I have not seen? Thank you in advance for your help. PS : If necessary, I can provide you my configuration files and mails bacula I'm french so I use http://translate.google.fr/ NFS server (Debian7) Start time: 21-Sep-2013 6:07:57 End time: 22-Sep-2013 7:11:19 p.m. Elapsed time: 1 day 13 hours 3 mins 22 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 11701096 SD Files Written: 11701096 FD Bytes Written: 378,946,671,990 (378.9 GB) SD Bytes Written: 381,440,447,623 (381.4 GB) Rate: 2840.6 KB / s Software Compression: None Windows 2008 Server: Start time: 20-Sep-2013 8:13:30 p.m. End time: 21-Sep-2013 6:27:35 p.m. Elapsed time: 22 hours 14 mins 5 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 4,818,480 SD Files Written: 4,818,480 FD Bytes Written: 362,866,795,007 (362.8 GB) SD Bytes Written: 363,628,654,115 (363.6 GB) Rate: 4533.3 KB / s Software Compression: None VSS: yes +-- |This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +-- -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Zitat von bdelagree bacula-fo...@backupcentral.com: Hello, This summer we invested in a PowerVault TL2000 library with two LTO5 drives to safeguard our various servers. Today two of my servers take to save a lot because they contain many small files for low volume (see the bottom of post) All my other servers backups quickly (20,000 KB/s to 30,000 KB/s) As explained in the documentation for Bacula I added the following option in the StorageDaemon and FileDaemon of these servers: Maximum Network Buffer Size = 65536 But that did not change anything ... Did I forget something? Something wrong? There's an other options that I have not seen? Be sure to use attribute spooling and if you have some fast local storage at the backup server data spooling. http://www.bacula.org/5.2.x-manuals/en/main/main/Data_Spooling.html Regards Andreas -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
Hello,
Thank you for the quick response.
My library is connected to a dedicated server only to services (PDC, DHCP, DNS,
LDAP, and Bacula)
This server is not designed to host files, so he has little space.
In addition, the MySql database is already 35Gb...
I can dedicate reasonably 50Gb on this one.
Is there one DataSpooling for bacula, or one by drive ?
Knowing I have a lot of servers to backup (8 servers for about 2.8 Tb of data),
is that enough or i need to find another system for Data Spooling?
df -h from my srv-infra-sm
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use%
Mounted on
rootfs 20G 836M 20G 5% /
udev 10M 0 10M 0%
/dev
tmpfs 1.6G 1.7M 1.6G 1%
/run
/dev/disk/by-uuid/465b04fb-de46-409b-928a-ec01ba98373e 20G 836M 20G 5% /
tmpfs 5.0M 4.0K 5.0M 1%
/run/lock
tmpfs 1.6G 8.0K 1.6G 1%
/run/shm
/dev/sda4 109G 40G 69G 37%
/var
tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0%
/tmp
New options in bacula-sd.conf (thinking that we need a spool by drive)
Device {
Name = Drive-0
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
Device {
Name = Drive-1
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
+--
|This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
+--
--
LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99!
1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint
2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes
Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
On 9/23/2013 9:32 AM, bdelagree wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the quick response.
My library is connected to a dedicated server only to services (PDC, DHCP,
DNS, LDAP, and Bacula)
This server is not designed to host files, so he has little space.
In addition, the MySql database is already 35Gb...
I can dedicate reasonably 50Gb on this one.
Is there one DataSpooling for bacula, or one by drive ?
Knowing I have a lot of servers to backup (8 servers for about 2.8 Tb of
data), is that enough or i need to find another system for Data Spooling?
Each file requires a DB insert, so clients with many small files really
hit the DB storage system hard. Attribute spooling is particularly
needed for those clients.
df -h from my srv-infra-sm
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use%
Mounted on
rootfs 20G 836M 20G 5%
/
udev 10M 0 10M 0%
/dev
tmpfs 1.6G 1.7M 1.6G 1%
/run
/dev/disk/by-uuid/465b04fb-de46-409b-928a-ec01ba98373e 20G 836M 20G 5%
/
tmpfs 5.0M 4.0K 5.0M 1%
/run/lock
tmpfs 1.6G 8.0K 1.6G 1%
/run/shm
/dev/sda4 109G 40G 69G 37%
/var
tmpfs 7.9G 0 7.9G 0%
/tmp
New options in bacula-sd.conf (thinking that we need a spool by drive)
Device {
Name = Drive-0
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
Device {
Name = Drive-1
.
.
.
Maximum Spool Size = 24gb
Maximum Job Spool Size = 12gb
Spool Directory = /var/lib/bacula/spool/drive0
}
+--
|This was sent by supervis...@numalliance.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
+--
--
LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99!
1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint
2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes
Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
--
LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99!
1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint
2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes
Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup, how to optimize ?
On 23/09/13 07:47, bdelagree wrote: Hello, This summer we invested in a PowerVault TL2000 library with two LTO5 drives to safeguard our various servers. Today two of my servers take to save a lot because they contain many small files for low volume (see the bottom of post) All my other servers backups quickly (20,000 KB/s to 30,000 KB/s) This is normal. There's an overhead in opening each file and it adds up quickly. I have 1Tb filesystems (98% full) with 7000-1 files in them which take about 12 hours to run a full backup I also have 1Tb filesystems (92% full) with 3-6 million files in them and they can take DAYS (GFS is very slow in opening files. This makes the overhead even more painfully obvious - it takes 28 hours just to do a zero-byte incremental backup of the worst filesystem) -- LIMITED TIME SALE - Full Year of Microsoft Training For Just $49.99! 1,500+ hours of tutorials including VisualStudio 2012, Windows 8, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, MVC 4, more. BEST VALUE: New Multi-Library Power Pack includes Mobile, Cloud, Java, and UX Design. Lowest price ever! Ends 9/20/13. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041151iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup.
I started two backups maybe 12 hours ago. Normally full backups run 1-2 h max, but this suddenly... From database I see no locks, but they geep inserting to batch -table. I have 12 gigabytes RAM, and given couple gigs to MySQL too. Database should not be bottle neck. How can it be so slow. Two backups running, 1st is a Pentium IV machine with a 80 Gbyte disk, maybe 10 Gbytes used. Has last 12 hours now doing batch inserts. Another machine is this 12 GiB Core i7 machine, with 500 GiB disk to backup up. Maybe half of it used. Strange. I have used Bacula looong times, since 1.x something. I have never liked batch inserts, they used to be slow on my earlier low end machiens. Now I have better machines and running pre compiled bacula from ubuntu repos. -- Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow Backup since Upgrade
Hi, since i have upgraded our Backup Server to Debian Squeeze and Bacula 5.0.2 the Jobs are only write with ~ 5 MB/s. status storage: Device IBMLTO4-sd (/dev/nst0) is mounted with: Volume: MITT01 Pool:MittwochPool Media type: LTO4 Total Bytes=157,171,864,755 Blocks=78,625,244 Bytes/block=1,999 Positioned at File=162 Block=20,096 Maybe it could be the blocksize with 1999? I have no Errors in my logfiles. regards Tobias -- # Stegbauer Datawork # Tobias Dinse # Oberjulbachring 9, 84387 Julbach -- Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow Backup since Upgrade
Ok error@blocksize :D Sorry regards Tobias # Stegbauer Datawork # Tobias Dinse # Oberjulbachring 9, 84387 Julbach On 12.05.2011 11:29, Tobias Dinse wrote: Hi, since i have upgraded our Backup Server to Debian Squeeze and Bacula 5.0.2 the Jobs are only write with ~ 5 MB/s. status storage: Device IBMLTO4-sd (/dev/nst0) is mounted with: Volume: MITT01 Pool:MittwochPool Media type: LTO4 Total Bytes=157,171,864,755 Blocks=78,625,244 Bytes/block=1,999 Positioned at File=162 Block=20,096 Maybe it could be the blocksize with 1999? I have no Errors in my logfiles. regards Tobias -- Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Oliver Hoffmann wrote: I did some tests with different gzip levels and with no compression at all. It makes a difference but not as expected. Without compression I still have a rate of only 11346.1 KB/s. Anything else I should try? Are you sure the cross-over connection is operating at 1Gbps? Are you sure that route interface is being used? It just seems coincidental that you're still being capped to almost exactly 100Mbps. Gavin -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line: solved!
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Oliver Hoffmann wrote: I did some tests with different gzip levels and with no compression at all. It makes a difference but not as expected. Without compression I still have a rate of only 11346.1 KB/s. Anything else I should try? Are you sure the cross-over connection is operating at 1Gbps? Are you sure that route interface is being used? It just seems coincidental that you're still being capped to almost exactly 100Mbps. Gavin As said before, I did some tests with ftp and scp. Looks reasonable. Oops, got it. The communication between the fd and the director was correct but fd to sd went still over the slow 100Mbit line. Now I have a rate of ca. 88 kb/s :-) Thanx for pointing me in the right direction! Cheers, Oliver -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
I did some tests with different gzip levels and with no compression at all. It makes a difference but not as expected. Without compression I still have a rate of only 11346.1 KB/s. Anything else I should try? Cheers, Oliver On Saturday 08 January 2011 11:46:11 Mister IT Guru wrote: On 07/01/2011 14:53, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 07/01/11, Oliver Hoffmann (o...@dom.de) wrote: I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? What sort of backups are you doing? Are you writing to tape? Are you using spooling? I am new(ish) to bacula, how does spooling speed up jobs, I have noticed similar issues, but because the same behavior appeared on three instances I've built recently. I'm very interested to learn how to improve performance. Um.. compression? -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
Hi all,
I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so.
bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of
11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection.
For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on
both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why
is that?
The communication definitely goes over 192.168.1.2/192.168.1.1.
The settings on the client and server are pretty much default.
I copied an 1,1GB test file with scp through the 1Gbit line and had
approx. 50MB/s.
Or with ftp:
1073741824 bytes sent in 10.61 secs (98867.6 kB/s).
Thx for hints,
Some basic information please:
* database
* tape drive details if you've backing up to disk
* the job and jobdefs resource for the job you are running
Database is mysql.
I do not use tapes. Backup to disk only.
Definitions:
Client {
Name = test-fd
Password = secret
#Connection over 1GB crosslink
Address = 192.168.1.2
FDPort = 9102
Catalog = MyCatalog
File Retention = 14 days
Job Retention = 6 months
}
FileSet {
Name = test-fd
Include {
#Here is roughly 2GB of mysl data
File = /tmp/backup
Options {
signature = MD5
#I did different levels. Now without compression
# Compression = GZIP9
}
}
}
Job {
Name = test
Type = Backup
Level = Full
Client = test-fd
FileSet = test-fd
#I just start this one myself
Schedule = never
Storage = raid-xfs
Pool = Pool1
Messages = Standard
}
As said, the rate is still only ca. 11300kb/s.
Thanx,
Oliver
--
Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company
that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to
best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure
and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On 1/9/2011 6:19 PM, Oliver Hoffmann wrote:
Hi all,
I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so.
bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of
11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection.
For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on
both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why
is that?
The communication definitely goes over 192.168.1.2/192.168.1.1.
The settings on the client and server are pretty much default.
I copied an 1,1GB test file with scp through the 1Gbit line and had
approx. 50MB/s.
Or with ftp:
1073741824 bytes sent in 10.61 secs (98867.6 kB/s).
Thx for hints,
Some basic information please:
* database
* tape drive details if you've backing up to disk
* the job and jobdefs resource for the job you are running
Database is mysql.
I do not use tapes. Backup to disk only.
Definitions:
Client {
Name = test-fd
Password = secret
#Connection over 1GB crosslink
Address = 192.168.1.2
FDPort = 9102
Catalog = MyCatalog
File Retention = 14 days
Job Retention = 6 months
}
FileSet {
Name = test-fd
Include {
#Here is roughly 2GB of mysl data
File = /tmp/backup
Options {
signature = MD5
#I did different levels. Now without compression
# Compression = GZIP9
}
}
}
Job {
Name = test
Type = Backup
Level = Full
Client = test-fd
FileSet = test-fd
#I just start this one myself
Schedule = never
Storage = raid-xfs
Pool = Pool1
Messages = Standard
}
As said, the rate is still only ca. 11300kb/s.
To the end of this email, please append the job output (i.e. the job email).
--
Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
--
Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company
that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to
best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure
and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On 07/01/2011 14:53, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 07/01/11, Oliver Hoffmann (o...@dom.de) wrote: I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? What sort of backups are you doing? Are you writing to tape? Are you using spooling? I am new(ish) to bacula, how does spooling speed up jobs, I have noticed similar issues, but because the same behavior appeared on three instances I've built recently. I'm very interested to learn how to improve performance. -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On Saturday 08 January 2011 11:46:11 Mister IT Guru wrote: On 07/01/2011 14:53, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 07/01/11, Oliver Hoffmann (o...@dom.de) wrote: I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? What sort of backups are you doing? Are you writing to tape? Are you using spooling? I am new(ish) to bacula, how does spooling speed up jobs, I have noticed similar issues, but because the same behavior appeared on three instances I've built recently. I'm very interested to learn how to improve performance. Um.. compression? -- Silver -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On 1/7/2011 9:48 AM, Oliver Hoffmann wrote: Hi all, I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? The communication definitely goes over 192.168.1.2/192.168.1.1. The settings on the client and server are pretty much default. I copied an 1,1GB test file with scp through the 1Gbit line and had approx. 50MB/s. Or with ftp: 1073741824 bytes sent in 10.61 secs (98867.6 kB/s). Thx for hints, Some basic information please: * database * tape drive details if you've backing up to disk * the job and jobdefs resource for the job you are running -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On 1/8/2011 4:46 AM, Mister IT Guru wrote: On 07/01/2011 14:53, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: On 07/01/11, Oliver Hoffmann (o...@dom.de) wrote: I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? What sort of backups are you doing? Are you writing to tape? Are you using spooling? I am new(ish) to bacula, how does spooling speed up jobs, I have noticed similar issues, but because the same behavior appeared on three instances I've built recently. I'm very interested to learn how to improve performance. This is called thread hi-jacking. Please do not do it. Please start a new thread asking for information about spooling. But I think you'll find many questions about spooling are already covered in the docs and in the archives. :) -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
Hi all, I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? The communication definitely goes over 192.168.1.2/192.168.1.1. The settings on the client and server are pretty much default. I copied an 1,1GB test file with scp through the 1Gbit line and had approx. 50MB/s. Or with ftp: 1073741824 bytes sent in 10.61 secs (98867.6 kB/s). Thx for hints, Oliver -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On 07/01/11, Oliver Hoffmann (o...@dom.de) wrote: I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? What sort of backups are you doing? Are you writing to tape? Are you using spooling? -- Rory Campbell-Lange r...@campbell-lange.net -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup even with a dedicated line
On Friday 07 January 2011 16:48:07 Oliver Hoffmann wrote: Hi all, I do full backups at the weekend and it just takes too long. 12h or so. bacula does one job after the other and I have a max. transfer rate of 11 to 12 MBytes/second due to the 100Mbit connection. For testing purpose I connected one client via crosslink (1Gbit on both sides) to the server. But I still have the same transfer rate. Why is that? The communication definitely goes over 192.168.1.2/192.168.1.1. The settings on the client and server are pretty much default. I copied an 1,1GB test file with scp through the 1Gbit line and had approx. 50MB/s. Or with ftp: 1073741824 bytes sent in 10.61 secs (98867.6 kB/s). Thx for hints, Oliver Years ago I did the same test and I found out that compression was to blame - when I turned off compression I got basically the speed of HDD writing. -- Silver -- Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup rate
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
*CATALOG
---
** FD Bytes Written: 478,808,703 (478.8 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 478,809,069 (478.8 MB)
Rate: 402.0 KB/s
Software Compression: None
INCREMENTAL
--
SD Bytes Written: 40,582,899 (40.58 MB)
Rate: 129.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 86.2 %
SD Bytes Written: 32,037,212 (32.03
MB)
Rate: 179.9
KB/s
Software Compression: 89.7 %
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 237,200
SD Files Written: 237,200
FD Bytes Written: 61,851,118,685 (61.85 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 61,883,017,775 (61.88 GB)
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 15.5 %
*
All my jobs have the maximum compression
*Options {
compression = GZIP9 #aggiungo compressione massima
*P.S. is this the maximum compression??
My backups are made on Hard Disk. I tried to use an USB, as an iscsi, as a
e-sata device but the rate is so slow..
My best throughput is less then 2Mb/s
It's all right, or there something wrong?
Thak's
Carlo (Italy)
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup rate
Hi Carlo,
for any modern hardware your rates sound low.
Below is an example I get in my home system (Core2 Duo, 8GB memory, CentOS
5.4 Linux 64-bit), writing to external USB disk, with no compression.
Backing up a local disk, catalog database on the same physical disk too (not
an ideal combination).
FD Files Written: 194,837
SD Files Written: 194,837
FD Bytes Written: 164,511,043,989 (164.5 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 164,537,630,363 (164.5 GB)
Rate: 24175.0 KB/s
Software Compression: None
AFAIK, the GZIP9 you are using is the heaviest compression, both in terms of
expected ratio, and required cpu load. I think the Bacula documentation
mentions that levels over 6 usually result in no significant improvent in
ratio, but consume more cpu power.
Incremental will be slower than full anyway. But since it's this much slower
even in this speed class, makes me think the reason might be something else
than compression. But since it shows very different compression ratio, it
may also be because of compression / different type of the contents of the
files included in the job in average.
At first, try lowering the compression level, or totally disable it, to get
a reference that helps you restrict the possible reasons to the low
throughtput.
A guess without knowing your system: if you have a Windows client with
antivirus sw that handles every disk access, it could have a heavy impact on
this too.
--
TiN
Carlo Filippetto carlo.filippe...@gmail.com kirjoitti viestissä
news:8791c1920912090138l3afdd208t8ec71c4678b1f...@mail.gmail.com...
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
CATALOG
---
FD Bytes Written: 478,808,703 (478.8 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 478,809,069 (478.8 MB)
Rate: 402.0 KB/s
Software Compression: None
INCREMENTAL
--
SD Bytes Written: 40,582,899 (40.58 MB)
Rate: 129.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 86.2 %
SD Bytes Written: 32,037,212 (32.03 MB)
Rate: 179.9 KB/s
Software Compression: 89.7 %
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 237,200
SD Files Written: 237,200
FD Bytes Written: 61,851,118,685 (61.85 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 61,883,017,775 (61.88 GB)
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 15.5 %
All my jobs have the maximum compression
Options {
compression = GZIP9 #aggiungo compressione massima
P.S. is this the maximum compression??
My backups are made on Hard Disk. I tried to use an USB, as an iscsi, as a
e-sata device but the rate is so slow..
My best throughput is less then 2Mb/s
It's all right, or there something wrong?
Thak's
Carlo (Italy)
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup rate
Carlo Filippetto wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
[...]
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
[...]
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 15.5 %
[...]
All my jobs have the maximum compression
/Options {
compression = GZIP9 #aggiungo compressione massima
/P.S. is this the maximum compression??
You didn't mention what speed your network connection is, but that's
slow even for 10BaseT. I would expect to see at least about 800 KB/s on
10Mbit, or at least 6-8MB/s on 100MB, or at least 25-35MB/s on Gigabit
(Yeah, I know Gigabit ought to be up around 80MB/s at least, but in
practice I've yet to see anything manage it personally. I know it's
possible, though.)
I saw someone else mentioned this already, but yes, GZIP9 is the
maximum, and that might actually be WHY the rate is slow.
The higher you set the compression rate, the more time the program
spends trying to cram more data into each packet before sending it.
If the compression rate is high enough, it may actually take much
more time to do the compression than is saved by sending less data.
A stupid analogy: if bacula-fd is the shipping department of a company,
no compression means the stuff (file data) being shipped is dumped
into a box until it reaches the top, then the box is closed and sent on
its way. Compression level 1 would be like pausing to press down on the
stuff in the box once and then top off the extra space with a little bit
more file data before sending it. Compression level 9 is like dumping
the stuff in, smashing it down, dumping more in, smashing it down,
dumping more in, jumping up and down on top of it, then recruiting some
guys from the next department over to stand on top while you seal the
box. The box ends up holding a lot more, but it takes so much longer to
get the box ready to go that you end up not getting as much shipped out
in the same amount of time.
It can be even worse if the client machine is comparatively low in CPU
power or is heavily loaded (e.g. an old Windows box running Symantec
antivirus doing active protection and scanning every file that bacula
tries to examine or send...).
Unless space on the backup media or bandwidth usage are the biggest
concerns, I tend to drop the compression all the way down to
GZIP1-GZIP4, or turn it off altogether.
On the other hand (or other thread, as the case may be, looking at the
discussion of bandwidth throttling), setting an unnecessarily high
compression level might also be used as a crude way of limiting
bandwidth usage if you don't care so much how long the backup actually
takes.
( I'm hoping to someday see LZMA1-LZMA9 or XZ1-XZ9 compression
options, too... )
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup rate
Sean M Clark wrote:
Carlo Filippetto wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if is true that I have so slow troughput as this:
[...]
FULL
-
Elapsed time: 1 day 22 hours 13 mins 37 secs
[...]
Rate: 371.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 15.5 %
[...]
All my jobs have the maximum compression
/Options {
compression = GZIP9 #aggiungo compressione massima
/P.S. is this the maximum compression??
I saw someone else mentioned this already, but yes, GZIP9 is the
maximum, and that might actually be WHY the rate is slow.
The higher you set the compression rate, the more time the program
spends trying to cram more data into each packet before sending it.
If the compression rate is high enough, it may actually take much
more time to do the compression than is saved by sending less data.
I can attest to this, GZIP compression (especially at GZIP9) can make a
large difference in backup transfer speeds, especially when combined
with client data encryption. I wouldn't be surprised if he was to get
5-10MB/sec after disabling GZIP compression, especially if the client
does not have modern hardware.
Unless space on the backup media or bandwidth usage are the biggest
concerns, I tend to drop the compression all the way down to
GZIP1-GZIP4, or turn it off altogether.
This is very true. There is often very little gain in compression ratio
with levels greater than GZIP1 or GZIP2, while higher levels will use
considerably more CPU time. Of course this depends entirely on the data
you are compressing, so he should try the various levels himself to see
whether there is any advantage to using a level greater than GZIP1.
( I'm hoping to someday see LZMA1-LZMA9 or XZ1-XZ9 compression
options, too... )
Ditto.
-Steve
--
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
Take also a look at your dir database setting.
( postgresql or mysql )
If you are using default distro's settings they are certainly to low.
check the ml wiki about this.
Il Neofita wrote:
Hi
I am using EXt3
and yes I also have small
Probably
50% 2M
40% 10M
10%40M
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp hoo...@nionex.net wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:27:06AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote:
First of all thank you for the answer
No I do not use compression in my file set
Options {
signature = MD5
}
I tried to upload with sftp
Uploading testfile to /tmp/terrierj
testfile 100% 83MB 41.4MB/s
00:02
There is only a problem,
I have the following configuration
two ethernet card in both servers
one connected to the LAN with an IP 10.10.1.X with a speed of 100M
and the other connected between the two servers with the IPs
192.168.10.x
with the speed of 1G
On my bacula-dir.conf other the client I put in the address the right
address and on the statistic of the second ethernet (that one a 1G) I
have
100M o traffic therefore is used
Thank you for the support and any Idea or test that I should do
Are you backing up a lot of small files? I've seen rates dropping to
the hundreds of kilobytes when bacula encounters directories with lots
of small files. Which filesystem are you using on the client host?
Cheers,
Uwe
--
Bruno Friedmann
--
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing,
iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow backup
I connected the backup server and the client with a crossover cable at 1G however Files=16,251 Bytes=5,504,385,701 Bytes/sec=9,690,819 Errors=0 What can I check? I am using SAS disks With ethtool I have Speed: 1000Mb/s therefore is correct -- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
On Thursday 28 May 2009 13:01:06 Il Neofita wrote: I connected the backup server and the client with a crossover cable at 1G however Files=16,251 Bytes=5,504,385,701 Bytes/sec=9,690,819 Errors=0 What can I check? I am using SAS disks With ethtool I have Speed: 1000Mb/s therefore is correct Check compression. When I use GZIP to compress data, I get rarely more than 2MB/s. If I don't use any compression, the transfer rate goes up to disk/LAN speed :) -- Silver -- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
Hi, there is 5Gb of data and the average speed is 9mb at sec. The speed is slow . Try to copy a big file from server to client (or viceversa) and se with iptraf the speed of copy. I think there is no problem with bacula but in the distro. Daniele Il giorno 28/mag/09, alle ore 12:01, Il Neofita ha scritto: I connected the backup server and the client with a crossover cable at 1G however Files=16,251 Bytes=5,504,385,701 Bytes/sec=9,690,819 Errors=0 What can I check? I am using SAS disks With ethtool I have Speed: 1000Mb/s therefore is correct -- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users -- Daniele Eccher Gruppo Darco - ICT Sistemi Via Ostiense 131/L Corpo B, 00154 Roma E-mail: daniele.ecc...@sociale.it tel : +39 06 57060 500 cell : +39 346 1426128 -- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:01:06AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote: I connected the backup server and the client with a crossover cable at 1G however Files=16,251 Bytes=5,504,385,701 Bytes/sec=9,690,819 Errors=0 What can I check? I am using SAS disks With ethtool I have Speed: 1000Mb/s therefore is correct Are you using gzip compression? All the best, Uwe -- uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net phone: [+49] 5242.91 - 4740, fax:-69 72 Hauptsitz: Avenwedder Str. 55, D-33311 Guetersloh, Germany Registergericht Guetersloh HRB 4196, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Horst Gosewehr NIONEX ist ein Unternehmen der DirectGroup Germany www.directgroupgermany.de -- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:27:06AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote:
First of all thank you for the answer
No I do not use compression in my file set
Options {
signature = MD5
}
I tried to upload with sftp
Uploading testfile to /tmp/terrierj
testfile 100% 83MB 41.4MB/s 00:02
There is only a problem,
I have the following configuration
two ethernet card in both servers
one connected to the LAN with an IP 10.10.1.X with a speed of 100M
and the other connected between the two servers with the IPs 192.168.10.x
with the speed of 1G
On my bacula-dir.conf other the client I put in the address the right
address and on the statistic of the second ethernet (that one a 1G) I have
100M o traffic therefore is used
Thank you for the support and any Idea or test that I should do
Are you backing up a lot of small files? I've seen rates dropping to
the hundreds of kilobytes when bacula encounters directories with lots
of small files. Which filesystem are you using on the client host?
Cheers,
Uwe
--
uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net phone: [+49] 5242.91 - 4740, fax:-69 72
Hauptsitz: Avenwedder Str. 55, D-33311 Guetersloh, Germany
Registergericht Guetersloh HRB 4196, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Horst Gosewehr
NIONEX ist ein Unternehmen der DirectGroup Germany www.directgroupgermany.de
--
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing,
iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
First of all thank you for the answer
No I do not use compression in my file set
Options {
signature = MD5
}
I tried to upload with sftp
Uploading testfile to /tmp/terrierj
testfile 100% 83MB 41.4MB/s 00:02
There is only a problem,
I have the following configuration
two ethernet card in both servers
one connected to the LAN with an IP 10.10.1.X with a speed of 100M
and the other connected between the two servers with the IPs 192.168.10.x
with the speed of 1G
On my bacula-dir.conf other the client I put in the address the right
address and on the statistic of the second ethernet (that one a 1G) I have
100M o traffic therefore is used
Thank you for the support and any Idea or test that I should do
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp hoo...@nionex.net wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:01:06AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote:
I connected the backup server and the client with a crossover cable at 1G
however
Files=16,251 Bytes=5,504,385,701 Bytes/sec=9,690,819 Errors=0
What can I check?
I am using SAS disks
With ethtool I have
Speed: 1000Mb/s
therefore is correct
Are you using gzip compression?
All the best,
Uwe
--
uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net phone: [+49] 5242.91 - 4740, fax:-69 72
Hauptsitz: Avenwedder Str. 55, D-33311 Guetersloh, Germany
Registergericht Guetersloh HRB 4196, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Horst Gosewehr
NIONEX ist ein Unternehmen der DirectGroup Germany
www.directgroupgermany.de
--
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing,
iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup
Hi
I am using EXt3
and yes I also have small
Probably
50% 2M
40% 10M
10%40M
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Uwe Schuerkamp hoo...@nionex.net wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:27:06AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote:
First of all thank you for the answer
No I do not use compression in my file set
Options {
signature = MD5
}
I tried to upload with sftp
Uploading testfile to /tmp/terrierj
testfile 100% 83MB 41.4MB/s
00:02
There is only a problem,
I have the following configuration
two ethernet card in both servers
one connected to the LAN with an IP 10.10.1.X with a speed of 100M
and the other connected between the two servers with the IPs
192.168.10.x
with the speed of 1G
On my bacula-dir.conf other the client I put in the address the right
address and on the statistic of the second ethernet (that one a 1G) I
have
100M o traffic therefore is used
Thank you for the support and any Idea or test that I should do
Are you backing up a lot of small files? I've seen rates dropping to
the hundreds of kilobytes when bacula encounters directories with lots
of small files. Which filesystem are you using on the client host?
Cheers,
Uwe
--
uwe.schuerk...@nionex.net phone: [+49] 5242.91 - 4740, fax:-69 72
Hauptsitz: Avenwedder Str. 55, D-33311 Guetersloh, Germany
Registergericht Guetersloh HRB 4196, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Horst Gosewehr
NIONEX ist ein Unternehmen der DirectGroup Germany
www.directgroupgermany.de
--
Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT
is a gathering of tech-side developers brand creativity professionals. Meet
the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing,
iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
Group, R/GA, Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com ___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
[Bacula-users] Slow Backup Speeds Using Bacula
Hi there, I've been having some problems attempting to increase the write speed to my tape drive through Bacula. If I use the operating system to communicate directly with the tape drive, I get the appropriate read and write speeds but using Bacula, I get a third of the speed. I have tried spooling the data to a separate physical drive before writing, no luck. I have played around with the block sizes using 64K, 128K, 196K and 256K but still the same performance. I have tried various backup sized ranging from under 1gb to 80gb but the speed stays constant on all tests. My average write speed seems to stay around 20mb/s give or take a few megabytes. I should be getting at least double that speed for the drive and SCSI card that I am using. My software setup is as follows:FreeBSD 5.5 x86Bacula 2.2.5 (Installed from source)MySQL 5.0.45 My hardware setup is as follows:CPU - AMD AM2 5600+Motherboard - Asus M2N-LRSCSI Card - Adaptec 29160NTape Drive - HP StorageWorks Ultrium 448Data Cartridge - HP LTO2 Ultrium 400GB Here are some examples: DD Read/Write Test server1# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/nsa0 bs=65536 count=3030+0 records in30+0 records out1966080 bytes transferred in 299.338943 secs (65680729 bytes/sec)server1# mt -f /dev/nsa0 rewindserver1# dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/nsa0 bs=65536 count=3030+0 records in30+0 records out1966080 bytes transferred in 291.253620 secs (67504054 bytes/sec) Btape Fill Test *fill (abbreviated)19:02:56 Flush block, write EOFWrote blk_block=314, dev_blk_num=4000 VolBytes=202,308,728,832 rate=19647.3 KB/sWrote blk_block=3145000, dev_blk_num=9000 VolBytes=202,631,288,832 rate=19644.3 KB/sWrote blk_block=315, dev_blk_num=14000 VolBytes=202,953,848,832 rate=19648.9 KB/sWrote blk_block=3155000, dev_blk_num=3500 VolBytes=203,276,408,832 rate=19644.0 KB/sWrote blk_block=316, dev_blk_num=8500 VolBytes=203,598,968,832 rate=19650.5 KB/sWrote blk_block=3165000, dev_blk_num=13500 VolBytes=203,921,528,832 rate=19657.0 KB/s04-Dec 19:04 btape JobId 0: End of Volume TestVolume1 at 295:14046 on device HP_Ultrium (/dev/nsa0). Write of 64512 bytes got 0.btape: btape.c:2345 Last block at: 295:14045 this_dev_block_num=14046btape: btape.c:2379 End of tape 297:0. VolumeCapacity=203,956,752,384. Write rate = 19643.3 KB/sDone writing 0 records ...Wrote state file last_block_num1=14045 last_block_num2=019:04:38 Done filling tape at 297:0. Now beginning re-read of tape ...04-Dec 19:05 btape JobId 0: Ready to read from volume TestVolume1 on device HP_Ultrium (/dev/nsa0).Rewinding.Reading the first 1 records from 0:0.1 records read now at 1:5084Reposition from 1:5084 to 295:14045Reading block 14045.The last block on the tape matches. Test succeeded. Full Job Email Output 04-Dec 14:16 server1-dir JobId 57: Start Backup JobId 57, Job=Client1.2007-12-04_14.16.1904-Dec 14:16 server1-dir JobId 57: Using Device HP_Ultrium04-Dec 14:38 server1-sd JobId 57: Job write elapsed time = 00:22:16, Transfer rate = 24.13 M bytes/second04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: Bacula server1-dir 2.2.5 (09Oct07): 04-Dec-2007 14:38:32 Build OS: i386-unknown-freebsd5.5 freebsd 5.5-RELEASE JobId: 57 Job:Client1.2007-12-04_14.16.19 Backup Level: Full Client: server1-fd 2.2.5 (09Oct07) i386-unknown-freebsd5.5,freebsd,5.5-RELEASE FileSet:Full Set 2007-12-04 09:08:20 Pool: Default (From Job resource) Storage:HP_Ultrium (From Job resource) Scheduled time: 04-Dec-2007 14:16:06 Start time: 04-Dec-2007 14:16:08 End time: 04-Dec-2007 14:38:32 Elapsed time: 22 mins 24 secs Priority: 1 FD Files Written: 37,640 SD Files Written: 37,640 FD Bytes Written: 32,233,221,269 (32.23 GB) SD Bytes Written: 32,239,016,919 (32.23 GB) Rate: 23983.1 KB/s Software Compression: None VSS:no Encryption: no Volume name(s): blahz Volume Session Id: 2 Volume Session Time: 1196806442 Last Volume Bytes: 32,264,322,048 (32.26 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: Begin pruning Jobs.04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: No Jobs found to prune.04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: Begin pruning Files.04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: No Files found to prune.04-Dec 14:38 server1-dir JobId 57: End auto prune. # Any help would be very appreciated. Thanks! Brad. _ Introducing the City @ Live! Take a tour! http://getyourliveid.ca/?icid=LIVEIDENCA006-
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow Backup Speeds Using Bacula
Hi there, I've been having some problems attempting to increase the write speed to my tape drive through Bacula. If I use the operating system to communicate directly with the tape drive, I get the appropriate read and write speeds but using Bacula, I get a third of the speed. I have tried spooling the data to a separate physical drive before writing, no luck. I have played around with the block sizes using 64K, 128K, 196K and 256K but still the same performance. I have tried various backup sized ranging from under 1gb to 80gb but the speed stays constant on all tests. Changing the block size should only make a small percentage change. Also spooling of a single job will not help because bacula fills the spool file completely then stops the backup to send the spool file to tape. When it does that you should see transfer rates of (30 to 45MB/s) for the despooling but the whole job will have a lower backup rate because of the lack of both spooling and despooling running at the same time. My average write speed seems to stay around 20mb/s give or take a few megabytes. I should be getting at least double that speed for the drive and SCSI card that I am using. 20 to 30 MB/s is totally reasonable for a full backup on LTO2 drive depending on compression. My software setup is as follows: FreeBSD 5.5 x86 Bacula 2.2.5 (Installed from source) MySQL 5.0.45 My hardware setup is as follows: CPU - AMD AM2 5600+ Motherboard - Asus M2N-LR SCSI Card - Adaptec 29160N Tape Drive - HP StorageWorks Ultrium 448 Data Cartridge - HP LTO2 Ultrium 400GB Here are some examples: DD Read/Write Test server1# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/nsa0 bs=65536 count=30 30+0 records in 30+0 records out 1966080 bytes transferred in 299.338943 secs (65680729 bytes/sec) server1# mt -f /dev/nsa0 rewind server1# dd of=/dev/null if=/dev/nsa0 bs=65536 count=30 30+0 records in 30+0 records out 1966080 bytes transferred in 291.253620 secs (67504054 bytes/sec) These numbers are artificially high because zeros will compress very highly so very few tape blocks are actually written to the tape so all you are testing here is the speed of the SCSI bus. A more realistic test would be to substitute /dev/sda for the input assuming you have data on your sda drive... John - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup with compression on Solaris
Hi, Jonas Björklund has spoken, thus: Hello, I get very poor performance with compression on a client. It's a Sun Fire V490 with 4 CPUs on 1350Mhz and 16GB memory. I'm having similiar problems with bacula here (but different hardware). filed: Sun Blade 1500 (1 CPU 1503Mhz 1GB memory) director: Sun E450 ( 4 CPUs 400Mhz 4GB memory) storaged: Sun Fire V240 (2 CPUs 1002Mhz 2GB memory) All systems are running Solaris 10 and bacula 1.3.8. The storaged has a hardware RAID attached, filed and director are using metadevices w/ mirroring. For my tests SSL encryption and SHA1 signatures has been disabled. Backups w/o compression are about 5.5MB/s, GZIP6 takes it down to 1.2MB/s. 5.5MB/s aren't really that much for our 100MBit LAN not to speak of 1.2MB/s. Decreasing the compression down to GZIP2 and GZIP1 resulted in a speed of 2.2MB/s.I watched any machine while backing up w/ iostat, vmstat and netstat. I couldn't see something spectacular on any. No processes were sitting in the run queue, nor blocked or swapping out. Load wasn't high on all machines and the disks' service time were quite acceptable. With one exception, the service time for the director's disks sometimes grew over the 30ms, but that shouldn't be a big deal? I also raised the Maximum Network Buffer Size for the filed and storaged up to 65536. Load on the involved switch is low, no I/O errors were detected on the wire. As a comparison, transferring files via scp usually gives us a rate of ~10MB/s. So, are there any suggestions where one could tweak to raise the transfer rate of bacula? Regards, Frank. -- -- Frank Brodbeck, BelWue-Koordination -- Tel: 0711/685-62502 -- Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Stuttgart Allmandring 3A, 70550 Stuttgart Fax: 0711/678-8363 -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.belwue.de/ -- - 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
[Bacula-users] Slow backup with compression on Solaris
Hello, I get very poor performance with compression on a client. It's a Sun Fire V490 with 4 CPUs on 1350Mhz and 16GB memory. JobId: 11 Job:client1.2006-12-04_16.34.10 Backup Level: Full Client: sasma sparc-sun-solaris2.10,solaris,5.10 FileSet:Sun System 2006-12-04 10:32:00 Pool: 1Month Storage:File01 Scheduled time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:06 Start time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:13 End time: 05-Dec-2006 03:53:36 Elapsed time: 11 hours 19 mins 23 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 314,934 SD Files Written: 314,934 FD Bytes Written: 41,030,170,977 (41.03 GB) SD Bytes Written: 41,078,489,760 (41.07 GB) Rate: 1006.6 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 % Volume name(s): 1Month-0004|1Month-0005 Volume Session Id: 1 Volume Session Time:1165246425 Last Volume Bytes: 31,077,182,535 (31.07 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK When I run the same backup wihtout compression it's fast. Is the server really so slow when it compress data? The zlib is from Sun. JobId: 10 Job: client1.2006-12-04_14.46.15 Backup Level: Full (upgraded from Incremental) Client: sasma sparc-sun-solaris2.10,solaris,5.10 FileSet: Sun System 2006-12-04 10:32:00 Pool: 1Month Storage: File01 Scheduled time: 04-Dec-2006 14:46:14 Start time: 04-Dec-2006 14:46:18 End time: 04-Dec-2006 16:13:24 Elapsed time: 1 hour 27 mins 6 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 314,814 SD Files Written: 314,814 FD Bytes Written: 227,373,218,380 (227.3 GB) SD Bytes Written: 227,421,517,665 (227.4 GB) Rate: 43508.1 KB/s Software Compression: None Volume name(s): 1Month-|1Month-0001|1Month-0002|1Month-0003|1Month-0004 Volume Session Id: 6 Volume Session Time: 1165224546 Last Volume Bytes: 39,924,048,802 (39.92 GB) Non-fatal FD errors: 0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination: Backup OK- 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] Slow backup with compression on Solaris
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Jonas Björklund wrote: I get very poor performance with compression on a client. It's a Sun Fire V490 with 4 CPUs on 1350Mhz and 16GB memory. Seems like the Sun server is slow. I got a little bit better performance when I used GZIP1 instead of GZIP (GZIP6).- 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] Slow backup with compression on Solaris
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:11:14 +0100 (CET), Jonas Bjorklund said: Hello, I get very poor performance with compression on a client. It's a Sun Fire V490 with 4 CPUs on 1350Mhz and 16GB memory. JobId: 11 Job:client1.2006-12-04_16.34.10 Backup Level: Full Client: sasma sparc-sun-solaris2.10,solaris,5.10 FileSet:Sun System 2006-12-04 10:32:00 Pool: 1Month Storage:File01 Scheduled time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:06 Start time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:13 End time: 05-Dec-2006 03:53:36 Elapsed time: 11 hours 19 mins 23 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 314,934 SD Files Written: 314,934 FD Bytes Written: 41,030,170,977 (41.03 GB) SD Bytes Written: 41,078,489,760 (41.07 GB) Rate: 1006.6 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 % Volume name(s): 1Month-0004|1Month-0005 Volume Session Id: 1 Volume Session Time:1165246425 Last Volume Bytes: 31,077,182,535 (31.07 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK When I run the same backup wihtout compression it's fast. Is the server really so slow when it compress data? The zlib is from Sun. You could check that the fd uses a lerge % of the CPU when compressing, to be sure that it isn't waiting for something else. Also, try timing tar v.s. tar+gzip on a large directory. __Martin - 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] Slow backup with compression on Solaris
Hello, I get very poor performance with compression on a client. It's a Sun Fire V490 with 4 CPUs on 1350Mhz and 16GB memory. JobId: 11 Job:client1.2006-12-04_16.34.10 Backup Level: Full Client: sasma sparc-sun-solaris2.10,solaris,5.10 FileSet:Sun System 2006-12-04 10:32:00 Pool: 1Month Storage:File01 Scheduled time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:06 Start time: 04-Dec-2006 16:34:13 End time: 05-Dec-2006 03:53:36 Elapsed time: 11 hours 19 mins 23 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 314,934 SD Files Written: 314,934 FD Bytes Written: 41,030,170,977 (41.03 GB) SD Bytes Written: 41,078,489,760 (41.07 GB) Rate: 1006.6 KB/s Software Compression: 82.0 % Volume name(s): 1Month-0004|1Month-0005 Volume Session Id: 1 Volume Session Time:1165246425 Last Volume Bytes: 31,077,182,535 (31.07 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK When I run the same backup wihtout compression it's fast. Is the server really so slow when it compress data? The zlib is from Sun. You could check that the fd uses a lerge % of the CPU when compressing, to be sure that it isn't waiting for something else. Also, try timing tar v.s. tar+gzip on a large directory. Only a guess have you already checked the data to be backuped? I run into similar problems when running backup (compressed) of a filesystem containing many already compressed files. chris - 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] Slow Backup Performance on Windows 2003.
I've seen similar data on my backups, but generally, only with very small backup sizes (less than 1GB). When I back up over 1GB, the rates increase dramatically, although backup from the Windows server is still only about 1/2 to 1/3 the Linux server rate. Before you get too concerned, try a bigger backup (3-5GB) and see what the performance is. With your small backups, it is probably mostly due to the ratio of overhead to actual data. Mike pedro moreno wrote: Hi. I have been working with bacula for some months, i love this software, my current problem is this one: My Test Server. I'm running bacula server 1.38.11 on FreeBSD 6.1-p3 Mysql 4.1.20 Tape HP Storage Works 232 External 200GB Compress HD 200 IDE 7200 RPM AMD Duron 1.6 Ghz 512 RAM Clients: 2 Win NT 4 Client 1.38.4 1 Windows 2k3 Estandard Edition Client 1.38.4 1 Linux Red Hat 9 (bonding ON -- 2 NIC's) 1.38.4 My production server is: I'm running bacula server 1.38.5 on FreeBSD 5.4-p16 Mysql 5.0.21 Tape HP Storage Works 232 External 200GB Compress HD 80 IDE 5400 RPM AMD Duron 1.6 Ghz 512 RAM Im going to talk about the test server, because the production server has almost the same performance, this is one report from a backup for win2k3: JobId: 56 Job:MBXPDC.2006-08-09_15.39.26 Backup Level: Full Client: MBXPDC Windows Server 2003,MVS,NT 5.2.3790 FileSet:MBXPDC-FS 2006-08-02 15:58:32 Pool: MueblexFullTape Storage:LTO-1 Scheduled time: 09-Aug-2006 15:39:07 Start time: 09-Aug-2006 15:39:32 End time: 09-Aug-2006 15:42:36 Elapsed time: 3 mins 4 secs Priority: 12 FD Files Written: 686 SD Files Written: 686 FD Bytes Written: 145,029,656 (145.0 MB) SD Bytes Written: 145,138,453 (145.1 MB) Rate: 788.2 KB/s Software Compression: None Volume name(s): FullTape-0003 Volume Session Id: 4 Volume Session Time:1155162336 Last Volume Bytes: 2,969,478,620 (2.969 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK You can see the rate...? This is the problem, this is a new server Supermicro: Xeon 3Ghz (2 cpu) 2 GB RAM Raid 5(4 HD) The others serves are old computers and the Rate value is 1MB/s, i still cannot increase this value. Example: WinNT 4(A) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2319.7 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2296.6 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 5536 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 1709.7 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 788.2 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes WinNT 4(A) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2319.7 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2296.6 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 5536 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 1709.7 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 824 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes Now check thi: WinNT 4(A) --- Spool OFF--Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1388.2 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1716 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 6739.5 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1398.7 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 805.7 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes WinNT 4(A) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 2124.1 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1867.5 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 4559 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1459.2 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 810.2 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes Them i disable the VSS=on, buffer = 65536 Win2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 814 Data Size 145MB VSS=off I check my Indexes on mysql, reading the maillist they look correct: mysql SHOW index from File; +---++--+--+-+---+-+--++--++-+ | Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |
[Bacula-users] Slow Backup Performance on Windows 2003.
Hi. I have been working with bacula for some months, i love this software, my current problem is this one:My Test Server.I'm running bacula server 1.38.11 on FreeBSD 6.1-p3Mysql 4.1.20Tape HP Storage Works 232 External 200GB Compress HD 200 IDE 7200 RPMAMD Duron 1.6 Ghz512 RAMClients:2 Win NT 4 Client 1.38.41 Windows 2k3 Estandard Edition Client 1.38.41 Linux Red Hat 9 (bonding ON -- 2 NIC's) 1.38.4My production server is: I'm running bacula server 1.38.5 on FreeBSD 5.4-p16 Mysql 5.0.21 Tape HP Storage Works 232 External 200GB Compress HD 80 IDE 5400 RPM AMD Duron 1.6 Ghz 512 RAM Im going to talk about the test server, because the production server has almost the same performance, this is one report from a backup for win2k3:JobId: 56 Job: MBXPDC.2006-08-09_15.39.26 Backup Level: Full Client: MBXPDC Windows Server 2003,MVS,NT 5.2.3790 FileSet: MBXPDC-FS 2006-08-02 15:58:32 Pool: MueblexFullTape Storage: LTO-1 Scheduled time: 09-Aug-2006 15:39:07 Start time: 09-Aug-2006 15:39:32 End time: 09-Aug-2006 15:42:36 Elapsed time: 3 mins 4 secs Priority: 12 FD Files Written: 686 SD Files Written: 686 FD Bytes Written: 145,029,656 (145.0 MB) SD Bytes Written: 145,138,453 (145.1 MB) Rate: 788.2 KB/s Software Compression: None Volume name(s): FullTape-0003 Volume Session Id: 4 Volume Session Time: 1155162336 Last Volume Bytes: 2,969,478,620 (2.969 GB) Non-fatal FD errors: 0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination: Backup OKYou can see the rate...?This is the problem, this is a new server Supermicro: Xeon 3Ghz (2 cpu)2 GB RAMRaid 5(4 HD)The others serves are old computers and the Rate value is 1MB/s, i still cannot increase this value. Example:WinNT 4(A) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2319.7 Data Size 176MBWinNT 4(B) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2296.6 Data Size 339MBLinux --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 5536 Data Size 155MBFreeBSD ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 1709.7 Data Size 8MBWin2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 788.2 Data Size 145MB VSS=yesWinNT 4(A) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2319.7 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 2296.6 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 5536 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 1709.7 Data Size 8MBWin2k3 ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = 65536 Rate 824 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes Now check thi:WinNT 4(A) --- Spool OFF--Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1388.2 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1716 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 6739.5 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1398.7 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool OFF --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 805.7 Data Size 145MB VSS=yes WinNT 4(A) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 2124.1 Data Size 176MB WinNT 4(B) --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1867.5 Data Size 339MB Linux --- Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 4559 Data Size 155MB FreeBSD ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 1459.2 Data Size 8MB Win2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 810.2 Data Size 145MB VSS=yesThem i disable the VSS=on, buffer = 65536Win2k3 ---Spool On --Net..Buffer Size = default Rate 814 Data Size 145MB VSS=off I check my Indexes on mysql, reading the maillist they look correct:mysql SHOW index from File;+---++--+--+-+---+-+--++--++-+ | Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment |+---++--+--+-+---+-+--++--++-+ | File | 0 | PRIMARY | 1 | FileId | A | 90562 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | || File | 1 | JobId | 1 | JobId | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | | File | 1 | JobId_2 | 1 | JobId | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | || File | 1 | JobId_2 | 2 | PathId | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | | File | 1 | JobId_2 | 3 | FilenameId | A | NULL | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | |+---++--+--+-+---+-+--++--++-+ This performance is the same on the producction server, i dont run nothing special on win2k3, still is fresh, i dont any firewall or antivirus software yet, my network is running at 100MB Full Duplex, the bacula and win2k3 are on the same switch. Some has some issue like on win2k3...? Im thinking that myabe the Raid performance is not really good, but the other sevices are runnnig good. Any ideas how resolve this problem...?Any tip will be apreciated, thanks all for you time!!! NOTE: Iam going to test the backup on File and see what happend.
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Hello Gabriele, I put under work my LTO-based backup system on my Solaris 9 machine (a fileserver running on old 220R!) and results are pretty good: 21-Jul 15:39 scribe02-dir: Bacula 1.38.9 (02May06): 21-Jul-2006 15:39:54 JobId: 261 Job:DaisyProj.2006-07-21_14.59.44 Backup Level: Full Client: daisy-fd sparc-sun-solaris2.9,solaris,5.9 FileSet:ExportProj 2006-07-21 14:59:46 Pool: LTO2alt Storage:Autoloader Scheduled time: 21-Jul-2006 14:59:24 Start time: 21-Jul-2006 14:59:47 End time: 21-Jul-2006 15:39:54 Elapsed time: 40 mins 7 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 253 SD Files Written: 253 FD Bytes Written: 25,391,596,871 (25.39 GB) SD Bytes Written: 25,391,628,721 (25.39 GB) Rate: 10549.1 KB/s Software Compression: None Volume name(s): LTO2alt1 Volume Session Id: 13 Volume Session Time:1153207122 Last Volume Bytes: 25,410,464,200 (25.41 GB) Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK The bacula-fd is version 1.38.9, compiled with gcc 3.3.2, hosted on a Sun Enterprise 220R (2 US-II @450MHz) with Solaris 9. Server has two arrays Sun D1000, so pretty old hardware. The sd is connected via ordinary 100 MB/s network to the fd, and it's running on a Xeon-class server with Linux/Debian. That said, I would be surprised that your issue is with bacula 'slowness' on Solaris, so maybe the server is slow to access data from disks or slow to send them? Regards -- Maxx - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On 7/19/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean that the whole 280R machine maybe running at half-duplex?!I'm not sure what interface you are using for the backups (probably an eriX), but to get the link status and link capabilities from the Solaris side you can e.g. use this script:http://www.razorsedge.org/~mike/software/linkck/linkck BTW: I also had some weird case where autonegotiation with Cisco switchesresulted in a slow link. It may be that you have to set speed manually, but if you do it, remember to set it on both sides. Cheers-- Maxx - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
I monitored a machine tonight.This is a self-backup machine running both the server and the fd, still on a sparc 280r.The avarage throughput is 1Mb/sec, while the network backup of another fd is 4Mb/sec.While the machine was backing-up itself, I used "top" to see the machine status.It was 4% of CPU load, with 3% assigned to postgres (I use postgres as the bacula db).Then there was 0.5% for bacula-sd and 0.5% for bacula-fd.Maybe I should use some sort of buffering on bacula? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.43.04 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280ROn Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Do you have any suggestion about parameters I may use to optimize the daemons? I'm not a developer :( ... unfortunately -- but you need to see where is the problem (due high CPU usage; low available RAM etc..) to ask for optimizations. Furthermore I do not have sparc machines in my setup to give you comparison data. Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.32.54 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R My opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windo
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Do you mean that the whole 280R machine maybe running at half-duplex?! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Kern Sibbald [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 19 luglio 2006 20.53.39 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280ROne user had similar problems with his Sparc and it turned out the problem was his switches which are auto speed detecting (10/100Mb). The problem was when he plugged a device in to the switch, the switch detected the speed then went into half-duplex mode making Bacula run very slowly. To correct the problem he had to power off the switch then power it back on. On Wednesday 19 July 2006 09:07, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: I monitored a machine tonight. This is a self-backup machine running both the server and the fd, still on a sparc 280r. The avarage throughput is 1Mb/sec, while the network backup of another fd is 4Mb/sec. While the machine was backing-up itself, I used "top" to see the machine status. It was 4% of CPU load, with 3% assigned to postgres (I use postgres as the bacula db). Then there was 0.5% for bacula-sd and 0.5% for bacula-fd. Maybe I should use some sort of buffering on bacula? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --- --- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.43.04 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Do you have any suggestion about parameters I may use to optimize the daemons? I'm not a developer :( ... unfortunately -- but you need to see where is the problem (due high CPU usage; low available RAM etc..) to ask for optimizations. Furthermore I do not have sparc machines in my setup to give you comparison data. Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - - Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.32.54 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R My opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - - Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - -
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In my organization, the Cisco switches we have are simply not reliable enough in autonegotiate mode -- period. Autonegotiate sounds nice in theory, but if you aren't plugging different devices into the port on a regular basis, why risk not knowing what your interface is going to do? I forget how to check or set this on Solaris, and it generally differs by machine type (I have a 280 someplace but am too lazy to check -- look on Google; I suspect ndd may be involved), but this is a very good place to look. Kern Sibbald wrote: One user had similar problems with his Sparc and it turned out the problem was his switches which are auto speed detecting (10/100Mb). The problem was when he plugged a device in to the switch, the switch detected the speed then went into half-duplex mode making Bacula run very slowly. To correct the problem he had to power off the switch then power it back on. On Wednesday 19 July 2006 09:07, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: I monitored a machine tonight. This is a self-backup machine running both the server and the fd, still on a sparc 280r. The avarage throughput is 1Mb/sec, while the network backup of another fd is 4Mb/sec. While the machine was backing-up itself, I used top to see the machine status. It was 4% of CPU load, with 3% assigned to postgres (I use postgres as the bacula db). Then there was 0.5% for bacula-sd and 0.5% for bacula-fd. Maybe I should use some sort of buffering on bacula? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --- --- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.43.04 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Do you have any suggestion about parameters I may use to optimize the daemons? I'm not a developer :( ... unfortunately -- but you need to see where is the problem (due high CPU usage; low available RAM etc..) to ask for optimizations. Furthermore I do not have sparc machines in my setup to give you comparison data. Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - - Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.32.54 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R My opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - - Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - - Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello,I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10.These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s!On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula-fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers,-- Maxx - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD.The server is running on a v20z.This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow.I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd).May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280ROn 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello,I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10.These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s!On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula-fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers,-- Maxx - 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 - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula-fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers, -- Maxx - 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 - 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 - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Oh no. I do not use compression at all.And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one.I don't think it's a problem of compression.I have this problem only on sparc machines.And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280RDo you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula-fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers, -- Maxx - 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 - 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 - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula- fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers, -- Maxx - 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 - 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 -- Hristo Benev IT Manager WAVEROAD Partners in Telecommunications 514-935-2020 x225 T 514-935-1001 F www.waveroad.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/secWhen these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280RJust to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula- fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers, -- Maxx - 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 - 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
My opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula- fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might be hitting the network transfer limit. Cheers, -- Maxx - 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
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Do you have any suggestion about parameters I may use to optimize the daemons? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.32.54 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280RMy opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s.. Are you talking about local backups, i.e. both your bacula- fd and bacula-sd are running on the same server, or there is a network in between? In the latter case you might
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Do you have any suggestion about parameters I may use to optimize the daemons? I'm not a developer :( ... unfortunately -- but you need to see where is the problem (due high CPU usage; low available RAM etc..) to ask for optimizations. Furthermore I do not have sparc machines in my setup to give you comparison data. Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 16.32.54 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R My opinion is that you have bottleneck somewhere (probably CPU or RAM, network). You need to monitor those machines during backup to see where exactly. On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:53 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: When the sparc machine are just clients, I may achieve 2-4Mb/sec When these machines are both servers and clients (backup themselves), often I achieve less then 1Mb!! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.43.15 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Just to exclude network! What is the transfer rate that you can achieve with those servers? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:37 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Oh no. I do not use compression at all. And if I'd use compression, I'd use hardware one. I don't think it's a problem of compression. I have this problem only on sparc machines. And they slow down the entire network backup during the night Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com -- Da: Hristo Benev [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] bacula- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: 18 luglio 2006 15.16.37 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R Do you use compression, because You have difference in processing power Sparc III is much less powerful than Opteron? On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:58 +0200, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Yes, it's a network backup. The SunFire is running the FD. The server is running on a v20z. This server backup many other machines, but no other one is running that slow. I usually achieve 5-8MB/s both on Windows clients and other solaris 10 platforms (x86/amd). May it be that the compiled agent for SPARC has some problem? Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com __ Da: MaxxAtWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] A: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 18 luglio 2006 13.22.13 CEST Oggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R On 7/14/06, Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I
Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Thanks,this is very interesting.My LTO2 drives (I have many installed) are from Certance.Do you achieve these rates on a SunFire 280R? What is your scsi card?I usually never achieve more than 8-10MB/s...how can it be?! Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com --Da: Alan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]A: Gabriele Bulfon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net Data: 15 luglio 2006 19.44.26 CESTOggetto: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280ROn Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s ! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s. Both of these rates are _very_ slow. I benchmarked my LTO2 drives at 27-28MB/s last week using btape. Marketing claims are for 60MB/s on 2:1 compressible data, but I believe btape's fill algorithm produces non-compressable. Even when spooling to disk and then dumping to tape, I still see rates of around 10-12Mb/s. Making up for that halving of speed, I am able to run concurrent backups, so the tape drives are more-or-less spinning all the time as various drives dump spooled data. AB - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Thanks, this is very interesting. My LTO2 drives (I have many installed) are from Certance. Mine are HP drives installed in a HP MSL6000 library (aka NEO4000) Do you achieve these rates on a SunFire 280R? No, Wintel hardware (HP Proliant DL580g2 - old tech now) What is your scsi card? HP badged Qlogic Fibre HBAs (2Gb/s, but 4Gb/s is available now) I usually never achieve more than 8-10MB/s...how can it be?! What do Certance quote as maximum throughput on the drives? Typical problems are: 1: Slow scsi speeds 2: bad termination 3: Long cables 4: Scsi contention The drives here go through a fibre-scsi router on the library, which has a dedicated U320 bus per drive. Newer (LTO3) drives are direct fibre attached and even faster AB - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: Hello, I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10. These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device. As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s ! On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s. Both of these rates are _very_ slow. I benchmarked my LTO2 drives at 27-28MB/s last week using btape. Marketing claims are for 60MB/s on 2:1 compressible data, but I believe btape's fill algorithm produces non-compressable. Even when spooling to disk and then dumping to tape, I still see rates of around 10-12Mb/s. Making up for that halving of speed, I am able to run concurrent backups, so the tape drives are more-or-less spinning all the time as various drives dump spooled data. AB - 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] Slow backup on Sparc SunFire 280R
Hello,I have some bacula installations on SunFire 280R Sparc machines, with Solaris 10.These machines apperar to be very very slow with respect to other installations (such as v20z) with same LTO2 device.As you can see from the report, 60Gb are copied in 9 hours, with an avarage rate of 1898.9 KB/s!On a v20z, the same amount of data is done in 5 hours or less, with an avarage a rate of 3139.2 KB/s..13-Jul 23:00 iserver-dir: Start Backup JobId 605, Job=Enterprise_Backup.2006-07-13_23.00.00 13-Jul 23:00 iserver-sd: Recycled volume "GIOVEDI" on device "/dev/rmt/1mbn", all previous data lost. 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: Bacula 1.36.2 (28Feb05): 14-Jul-2006 07:54:46 JobId: 605 Job:Enterprise_Backup.2006-07-13_23.00.00 Backup Level: Full Client: iserver-fd FileSet:"Full Set" 2006-01-02 23:00:02 Pool: "ThursdayPool" Storage:"QUANTUM" Start time: 13-Jul-2006 23:00:03 End time: 14-Jul-2006 07:54:46 FD Files Written: 437,238 SD Files Written: 437,238 FD Bytes Written: 60,922,201,547 SD Bytes Written: 60,991,858,708 Rate: 1898.9 KB/s Software Compression: None Volume name(s): GIOVEDI Volume Session Id: 1 Volume Session Time:1152818241 Last Volume Bytes: 61,062,250,129 Non-fatal FD errors:0 SD Errors: 0 FD termination status: OK SD termination status: OK Termination:Backup OK 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: Begin pruning Jobs. 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: No Jobs found to prune. 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: Begin pruning Files. 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: No Files found to prune. 14-Jul 07:54 iserver-dir: End auto prune. Gabriele Bulfon - Sonicle S.r.l. Tel +39 028246016 Int. 30 - Fax +39 028243880 Via Felice Cavallotti 16 - 20089, Rozzano - Milano - ITALY http://www.sonicle.com - 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
