NFS as well.
Thanks,
Alan
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:09:16 -0400
From: martin...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
Alan,
Most people report faster throughput without
the network cards, do they report error?
Jean-Louis
Alan Griffiths wrote:
This time with files *actually* attached!
From: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
To: martin...@zmanda.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: RE: TCP Tuning
Date: Thu
.
Alan
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:59:01 -0400
From: martin...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
Use the amgtar application and set the TAR-BLOCKSIZE to a bigger value
(half
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:59:01 -0400
From: martin...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
Use the amgtar application and set the TAR-BLOCKSIZE to a bigger value
(half the STREAM_BUFSIZE.
Why do you believe
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
You talk about one dle or multiple dle?
Are you using compression or encryption? on client or server?
Are you using holding disk? or dumping directly to tape?
Post the amdump. file for when it use NFS
This time with files *actually* attached!
From: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
To: martin...@zmanda.com
CC: dus...@zmanda.com; amanda-users@amanda.org
Subject: RE: TCP Tuning
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:14:33 +0100
Just one dle.
No compression - data
, but this appears to not be the case in 2.6.1p1.
Thanks,
Alan
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:03:21 -0400
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
From: dus...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: amanda-users@amanda.org
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Alan Griffiths
ap_griffi...@hotmail.com wrote
of the buffer size being used. Note: client also has the new binaries. In older
versions of AMANDA amandad used to report buffer size, but this appears to not
be the case in 2.6.1p1.
Thanks,
Alan
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:03:21 -0400
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
From: dus...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi
quicker one way or another.
Alan
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:43:24 -0400
Subject: Re: TCP Tuning
From: dus...@zmanda.com
To: ap_griffi...@hotmail.com
CC: amanda-users@amanda.org
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alan Griffiths
ap_griffi...@hotmail.com wrote:
dumper: try_socksize: send buffer
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Alan Griffiths
ap_griffi...@hotmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately it does not result in the backup running any faster. I will
have a look at hacking amandad.c as you suggest. My fallback option is to
NFS mount the directories on the backup server. Would prefer to not
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alan Griffiths
ap_griffi...@hotmail.com wrote:
dumper: try_socksize: send buffer size is 524288
But backups are running no faster and I cannot see any indication on the
client of the buffer size being used. Note: client also has the new
binaries. In older
Hi,
Is there a way to modify the size of the TCP buffers used by AMANDA? I am
trying to improve performance over a relatively high latency link and this
seems to be the only way.
Thanks,
Alan
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Alan Griffiths
ap_griffi...@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to modify the size of the TCP buffers used by AMANDA? I am
trying to improve performance over a relatively high latency link and this
seems to be the only way.
It's a source constant, unfortunately,
13 matches
Mail list logo
