Re: [Bacula-users] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Marco wrote: Just an idea: I did not build v1.38.11 and v1.38.8 myself but installed the debian packages. During the downgrade I noticed that there were changes concerning sqlite and sqlite3. Sqlite is NOT a production quality database and should NOT be used in a production backup system. It is only included for testing purposes. Past discussions have centred on sqlite's massive slowdowns in version 3. Install mysql or postgres. - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Alan Brown wrote: Sqlite is NOT a production quality database and should NOT be used in a production backup system. It is only included for testing purposes. sqlite may not compete with a true DBMS but there isn't a performance issue with sqlite2 in small environments like mine. And it has the major advantage for bare metal recoveries that you need not install and configure a DBMS for recovery. /m - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Hello, I was very disappointed about the performance of backups after upgrading from 1.38.5 to 1.38.11. The rates dropped to 10% of before. After downgrading to 1.38.8 the performance is good again. In which version was the change? Can we expect the former performance for future versions? Regards, Marco - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Did you upgrade and downgrade every agent? ZK --- Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I was very disappointed about the performance of backups after upgrading from 1.38.5 to 1.38.11. The rates dropped to 10% of before. After downgrading to 1.38.8 the performance is good again. In which version was the change? Can we expect the former performance for future versions? Regards, Marco - 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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
Re: [Bacula-users] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
On Thursday 31 August 2006 17:28, Marco wrote: Hello, I was very disappointed about the performance of backups after upgrading from 1.38.5 to 1.38.11. The rates dropped to 10% of before. After downgrading to 1.38.8 the performance is good again. In which version was the change? Can we expect the former performance for future versions? Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to answer this question. I've read that some people are having performance problems with the Win32 version, but I haven't seen any hard data comparing equal filesets before and after (or after upgrade and then after downgrading). Concerning this email, I have no idea what components (I assume all) that you upgraded and downgraded, what the differences were, what clients we are talking about, or any output that shows the problem. Until I understand the problem, and can duplicate it, I cannot imagine any change one way or another ... - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Kern Sibbald wrote: Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to answer this question. I've read that some people are having performance problems with the Win32 version, but I haven't seen any hard data comparing equal filesets before and after (or after upgrade and then after downgrading). Concerning this email, I have no idea what components (I assume all) that you upgraded and downgraded, what the differences were, what clients we are talking about, or any output that shows the problem. I up/downgraded all components on the debian sarge server. I already described more details in my former thread backup extrem slow after upgrade. /m - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Maybe that helps: 1-Aug 16:26 server1-dir: Bacula 1.38.8 (14Apr06): 31-Aug-2006 16:26:48 JobId: 1 Job:Server.2006-08-31_14.59.55 Backup Level: Full Client: server-fd i486-pc-linux-gnu,debian,testing/unstable FileSet:Full Set 2006-08-31 14:43:57 Pool: Full-Pool Storage:File Scheduled time: 31-Aug-2006 14:59:44 Start time: 31-Aug-2006 14:59:57 End time: 31-Aug-2006 16:26:48 Elapsed time: 1 hour 26 mins 51 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 417,702 SD Files Written: 417,702 FD Bytes Written: 27,421,538,260 (27.42 GB) SD Bytes Written: 27,484,105,465 (27.48 GB) Rate: 5262.2 KB/s Software Compression: 20.2 % 25-Aug 10:18 server1-dir: Bacula 1.38.11 (28Jun06): 25-Aug-2006 10:18:43 JobId: 6 Job:Server.2006-08-24_21.53.53 Backup Level: Full (upgraded from Incremental) Client: server-fd i486-pc-linux-gnu,debian,testing/unstable FileSet:Full Set 2006-08-24 05:56:42 Pool: Full-Pool Storage:File Scheduled time: 24-Aug-2006 21:53:52 Start time: 24-Aug-2006 21:56:03 End time: 25-Aug-2006 10:18:43 Elapsed time: 12 hours 22 mins 40 secs Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 416,456 SD Files Written: 416,456 FD Bytes Written: 26,107,536,251 (26.10 GB) SD Bytes Written: 26,169,939,027 (26.16 GB) Rate: 585.9 KB/s Software Compression: 20.1 % 06-Aug 04:56 server1-dir: Bacula 1.38.5 (18Jan06): 06-Aug-2006 04:56:10 JobId: 414 Job:Server.2006-08-06_03.05.00 Backup Level: Full Client: server-fd i686-pc-linux-gnu,debian,3.1 FileSet:Full Set 2006-01-23 14:55:16 Pool: Full-Pool Storage:File Scheduled time: 06-Aug-2006 03:05:00 Start time: 06-Aug-2006 03:05:02 End time: 06-Aug-2006 04:56:10 Priority: 10 FD Files Written: 417,624 SD Files Written: 417,624 FD Bytes Written: 26,698,951,874 SD Bytes Written: 26,761,584,102 Rate: 4004.0 KB/s Software Compression: 32.9 % /m - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:49, Marco wrote: Maybe that helps: Yes, I can now see what you are complaining about. I would like to see a second Full save on version 1.38.11 to exclude the possibility that some other process was hogging your machine. I would also like to see a Full backup made on a version of Bacula older than 1.38.11, but made after 28Jun06. Between bacula 1.38.8 and 1.38.11, there were very few changes made at a low level, and I cannot imagine anything in the code that could make such a difference. However, perhaps your configuration changed. For example, perhaps you turned on spooling for 1.38.11, which would probably slow things down a lot. The fact that you are doing software compression would make the backup rate extremely sensitive to other activity on the machine. I'm not backing up to File, and I don't do Full backups very often, and unfortunately, I never did any full backups on version 1.38.11. However, below, you can see my data for a number of versions of Bacula for two different machines. I've cut out what I consider non-important information to keep the size down. What I note is that my times/rates can vary a good deal (a factor of 2) probably because something else is running or I am doing multiple simultaneous backups. However, it is clear that there was never a slow down by a factor of 10, at least not on the versions I ran. == Rufus backup -- my development machine === 03-Apr 04:07 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.6 (28Mar06): 03-Apr-2006 04:07:30 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Elapsed time: 59 mins 9 secs SD Bytes Written: 20,137,442,944 (20.13 GB) Rate: 5655.8 KB/s 05-Jun 04:09 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.9 (02May06): 05-Jun-2006 04:09:24 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Elapsed time: 1 hour 1 min 20 secs SD Bytes Written: 20,342,175,931 (20.34 GB) Rate: 5508.8 KB/s 01-Jul 20:28 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.10 (04Jun06): 01-Jul-2006 20:28:24 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Bordeaux) Elapsed time: 59 mins 28 secs SD Bytes Written: 17,771,044,193 (17.77 GB) Rate: 4960.0 KB/s 02-Jul 23:57 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.10 (04Jun06): 02-Jul-2006 23:57:52 Job:Rufus.2006-07-02_22.31.51 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,suse,10.1 Elapsed time: 1 hour 25 mins 57 secs SD Bytes Written: 16,965,578,447 (16.96 GB) Rate: 3275.6 KB/s 03-Jul 03:54 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.10 (04Jun06): 03-Jul-2006 03:54:35 Job:Rufus.2006-07-03_03.05.01 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,suse,10.1 Elapsed time: 46 mins 8 secs SD Bytes Written: 16,957,890,899 (16.95 GB) Rate: 6099.9 KB/s 07-Aug 04:03 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.39.18 (04Aug06): 07-Aug-2006 04:03:09 Job:Rufus.2006-08-07_03.05.01 Backup Level: Full Client: Rufus i686-pc-linux-gnu,suse,10.1 Elapsed time: 55 mins 7 secs SD Bytes Written: 19,122,538,934 (19.12 GB) Rate: 5759.2 KB/s Matou backups -- my server = 04-Mar 03:35 roxie-dir: Bacula Beta-1.38.4 (14Jan06): 04-Mar-2006 03:35:13 Job:Matou.2006-03-04_03.05.00 Backup Level: Full Client: Matou i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Start time: 04-Mar-2006 03:05:02 End time: 04-Mar-2006 03:35:13 SD Bytes Written: 9,674,381,206 Rate: 5326.0 KB/s 06-May 03:36 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.9 (02May06): 06-May-2006 03:36:13 Job:Matou.2006-05-06_03.05.00 Backup Level: Full Client: Matou i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Elapsed time: 31 mins 10 secs SD Bytes Written: 9,603,901,984 (9.603 GB) Rate: 5119.7 KB/s 03-Jun 03:36 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.9 (02May06): 03-Jun-2006 03:36:01 Job:Matou.2006-06-03_03.05.00 Backup Level: Full Client: Matou i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Elapsed time: 30 mins 57 secs SD Bytes Written: 9,792,070,730 (9.792 GB) Rate: 5256.8 KB/s 01-Jul 03:51 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.38.10 (04Jun06): 01-Jul-2006 03:51:58 Job:Matou.2006-07-01_03.05.00 Backup Level: Full Client: Matou i686-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Stentz) Elapsed time: 46 mins 55 secs SD Bytes Written: 9,344,044,760 (9.344 GB) Rate: 3308.5 KB/s 05-Aug 03:37 roxie-dir: Bacula 1.39.18 (04Aug06): 05-Aug-2006
Re: [Bacula-users] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Just an idea: I did not build v1.38.11 and v1.38.8 myself but installed the debian packages. During the downgrade I noticed that there were changes concerning sqlite and sqlite3. I have not take a closer look on this because I don't understand much about it anyway. But maybe you could check whether the package maintainer's work caused the problem. /m - 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] increased speed dramatically by downgrading
Hello, On 9/1/2006 12:51 AM, Marco wrote: Just an idea: I did not build v1.38.11 and v1.38.8 myself but installed the debian packages. During the downgrade I noticed that there were changes concerning sqlite and sqlite3. I have not take a closer look on this because I don't understand much about it anyway. But maybe you could check whether the package maintainer's work caused the problem. Not the packager, I'd say... it seems as though sqlite is not the best performing choice of catalog database for Bacula. Switch to PostgreSQL or MySQL and things might become much faster I guess. Arno /m - 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 -- IT-Service Lehmann[EMAIL PROTECTED] Arno Lehmann http://www.its-lehmann.de - 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
