On Tuesday 23 January 2007 00:25, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm working on setting up some Amanda backups at my house and have run
>into a serious performance problem.  Both the client and the server
>machine are using LVM2 for their disks.  Though there's 320GiB of data
>to backup, this is a bit ridiculous:
>
>sendbackup: time 8008.486:  87:  normal(|):   DUMP: 8.07% done at 3472
> kB/s, finished in 24:40
>
>I've done tons of dumps to LVM volumes on a server with no speed
>problems, so I'm investigating the client.  dumping on the client to
>/dev/null gives nearly the same performance, so I'm confident that
>it's an issue with dump + LVM on the client. [1]
>
>The client is all but idle, not doing compression/encryption, and only
>has two PVs in the VG, both of which are fast SATA disks.  If I
>increase the blocksize of dump to 64kiB (the largest the manpage says
>is smart), performance gets better, in the range of 15-20M/s.
>
>Has anyone seen performance this bad from dump before?  Is there
>some tunable to get things running a little faster?  24 hours of a
>full backup seems just terrible....
>
>
>[1] - So yea, technically this the wrong place to ask, the LVM mailing
>lists seem to be all but completely dead.  On the other hand, lots of
>people know stuff about dump here!

Well, since dump works at the partition level, it may be that dump and LVM 
aren't compatible.  Switch to tar, which is file oriented & see what 
happens.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.