Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+Tuning\s+for\s+disk\s+contention\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+Tuning\s+for\s+disk\s+contention\s*$/: 7 ]

Total 7 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: James Ward <jeward AT torzo DOT com>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:39:22 -0700; The discussion over the various BackupPC scenarios got me to thinking. My server IS disk bound. All the servers it backs up on on at least a 100M network link in the same room and some on 1G. With th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00190.html (12,659 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: "Michael Stowe" <mstowe AT chicago.us.mensa DOT org>; Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:05:18 -0500; It's an awfully good question, but there probably isn't a single right answer. My server is a quad-cpu beast on a gigabit network, but I settled on two backups at a time after measuring degradation (; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00191.html (13,744 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: higuita <higuita AT GMX DOT net>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 04:08:22 +0100; Hi the "perfect" max load should be the number of cpus you have, so a quad-core server can sustain a load of 4 without any problem... after that number, the higher the load, the higher will be the pe; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00192.html (15,140 bytes)
4. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: dan <dandenson AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:42:31 -0600; On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Michael Stowe <mstowe AT chicago.us.mensa DOT org> wrote: It's an awfully good question, but there probably isn't a single right answer. My server is a quad-cpu beast; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00200.html (14,316 bytes)
5. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: dan <dandenson AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:52:35 -0600; the "perfect" max load should be the number of cpus you have, so a quad-core server can sustain a load of 4 without any problem... after that number, the higher the load, the hig; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00201.html (16,243 bytes)
6. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: higuita <higuita AT GMX DOT net>; Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 01:57:45 +0100; Hi i'm not saying that backuppc is cpu bound, i'm describing what is the "perfect" load, as he asked... the "s in the perfect is because its not the only metric needed to check how a machine is going; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00212.html (16,275 bytes)
7. Re: [BackupPC-users] Tuning for disk contention (score: 1): Author: Tino Schwarze <backuppc.lists AT tisc DOT de>; Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:51:01 +0200; [...] I'd add some memory first. 4GB is so cheap these days and it helps a lot for disk caching. I've seen a performance boost by upgrading from 2 GB to 6 GB on a quad core Xeon which is also heavily; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2009-09/msg00224.html (13,489 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 7
Page: [1]