Hi, we've come over from an Amanda backup system which had become a
nightmare to administer, and generally we're very happy with Bacula.
My concern thought is speed: Bacula is proving to be very slow, possibly in
relation - it seems - to its network utilisation. We're backing up over a
managed
Am Tue, 11 May 2010 03:47:05 -0700 schrieb martinofmoscow:
Hi, we've come over from an Amanda backup system which had become a
nightmare to administer, and generally we're very happy with Bacula.
My concern thought is speed: Bacula is proving to be very slow, possibly
in relation - it seems
Hi,
On Tue, 11 May 2010, martinofmoscow wrote:
I kicked off a [400Gb, full] bacup at 1am on Saturday and it completed 11
hours later at mid-day.
At the risk of getting the sums wrong and looking silly:
400GB in 11 hours
~ 36GB per hour
~ 600MB per minute
~ 10MB per second
~ 82Mbit/sec
Thanks Gavin, that's very defly surmised! I guess we were misunderstanding
what Amanda was/wasn't doing previously.
Gavin McCullagh-2 wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 11 May 2010, martinofmoscow wrote:
I kicked off a [400Gb, full] bacup at 1am on Saturday and it completed 11
hours later at mid-day.
On Tue, 11 May 2010, martinofmoscow wrote:
Anyone have any experience with using compression on the client with
Bacula?
Yeah, we use it almost everywhere. The only exception is a video store
where the files aren't terribly compressible. As you might imagine, it
uses considerable CPU cycles
