Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Poor\s+Performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Poor\s+Performance\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:41:41 -0400; Hi I have very poor performance when the agent send the spool to the bacula server I currently use a RAID5 SAS 15K, 1GB Ethernet hdparm -t /dev/sda2 /dev/sda2: Timing buffered disk reads: 692 MB in 3; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00161.html (15,078 bytes)
2. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: "Simone Martina" <smartina AT noc.skylogicnet DOT com>; Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 08:58:17 -0500; Aren't you using a TAPE to store your backup? IMHO, probably the speed is bottlenecked by the TAPE trasmission rate. Simone -- Chi ride ultimo ha fatto un backup. -- curt AT cynic.wimsey.bc DOT ca (; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00167.html (12,551 bytes)
3. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:55:54 -0400; This is not poor performance. You are doing an incremental backup. In this case bacula will spend a large chunk of its time searching for what files to backup and not actually backing up data. John; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00168.html (17,467 bytes)
4. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:05:35 -0400; Yes I am using a tape but should not be the tape 07-Apr 00:36 angel-sd JobId 1443: Despooling elapsed time = 00:02:34, Transfer rate = 75.16 M bytes/second this is with a full backup FD Files Written; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00171.html (14,317 bytes)
5. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Matija Nalis <mnalis+bacula AT CARNet DOT hr>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:39:08 +0200; First the obvious question: are the server or client doing anything else while the backup is running? is that hdparm run on server or client ? that is raw buffered linear burst read speed... seeks ca; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00173.html (14,437 bytes)
6. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:10:47 -0400; You mean 30MB/s. I get 20 to 35MB/s for full backups with LTO2 from a raid5 array to a LTO2 autochanger that is not on the same machine as the raid. It looks like you have an LTO3 changer by the 75M; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00179.html (13,580 bytes)
7. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:04:38 -0400; Thank you for all the replies The bottleneck is the network or at lest something in the network and yes I have an autoloader LTO4 If I use NC with a file of 10M I need 8 seconds to transfer If I use; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00193.html (14,246 bytes)
8. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:55:55 -0400; Any Idea? What I should check On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com> wrote: -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. S; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00236.html (14,738 bytes)
9. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:06:30 -0400; Put the spool on a different drive than the drive you are backing up. John -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactivel; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00238.html (12,628 bytes)
10. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Matija Nalis <mnalis+bacula AT CARNet DOT hr>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:12:42 +0200; it sounds very strange, the scp should be slower (or at best same speed) as it needs additional step of encrypting data. It could only be faster if it is (maybe by default) doing ssh compression of d; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00240.html (13,782 bytes)
11. Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance (score: 1): Author: Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 11:46:10 -0400; Thank you for the reply centos@client:/tmp/butta$> bin/iperf -c angel -- Client connecting to angel, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) -- [ 3] local 192.168.53.103 port 39744 connec; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2010-04/msg00241.html (14,734 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]