Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-08 Thread David Rees
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I routinely hit 100% CPU utilization on the Via C3 1GHz Mini-ITX systems I > use as backup servers. I will grant you that the C3 is not the most > efficient processor, but I am definitely CPU-limited. I too have 512MB RAM, > but the machin

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-08 Thread Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
On 01/08 12:30 , Jason Hughes wrote: > Yes, do not use VIA C3 processors or motherboards. They are severely > underpowered at any clock rate. :-) they are indeed slow; but on the other hand they produce comparatively little heat, and are cheap. there's also some instructions built into them for

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-08 Thread Jason Hughes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I routinely hit 100% CPU utilization on the Via C3 1GHz Mini-ITX systems I use as backup servers. I will grant you that the C3 is not the most efficient processor, but I am definitely CPU-limited. I too have 512MB RAM, but the machines are not swapping. And that's

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-08 Thread tmassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/01/2007 11:34:57 PM: > I wouldn't be surprised, though, if your problem is either not CPU related > or caused by a misconfiguration if it really is. Please someone correct me > if I'm wrong, but a 1.3 GHz Duron doesn't sound slow enough by far to me to > be legiti

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-03 Thread David Rees
On 1/2/07, Jason Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good recommendations, Holger. I would add that "nice"ing a process only > changes its scheduling affinity, but does not modify in any way its hard > disk activity or DMA priority, so until the original poster understands > what exactly makes the

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-02 Thread Jason Hughes
Holger Parplies wrote: > Paul Harmor wrote on 01.01.2007 at 20:51:43 [[BackupPC-users] OK, how about > changing the server's backuppc process niceness?]: > >> I have only 2 machines (at the moment) being backed up, but every time >> the backups start, the server sy

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-01 Thread Holger Parplies
Hi (or "ok, hi"), Paul Harmor wrote on 01.01.2007 at 20:51:43 [[BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?]: > I'm running a 1.3Gig Duron, 512 DDR, LVM and 2x160GB drives, on Ubuntu 6.10. while that's a nice start and possibly

Re: [BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-01 Thread John Pettitt
Paul Harmor wrote: > > > I'm running a 1.3Gig Duron, 512 DDR, LVM and 2x160GB drives, on Ubuntu 6.10. > > I have only 2 machines (at the moment) being backed up, but every time > the backups start, the server system slows to an UNUSEABLE crawl, until > I can, slowly, start top, and renice the 4 bac

[BackupPC-users] OK, how about changing the server's backuppc process niceness?

2007-01-01 Thread Paul Harmor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm running a 1.3Gig Duron, 512 DDR, LVM and 2x160GB drives, on Ubuntu 6.10. I have only 2 machines (at the moment) being backed up, but every time the backups start, the server system slows to an UNUSEABLE crawl, until I can, slowly, start top, and r