Thomas Karcher wrote:
> Hi Ski,
> 
>>> Performance is of course not really great but surprisingly good. I
>>> evaluated (very shortly) against mounting via NFS, and NFS just sucks
>>> with backuppc.
>> I think it depends on the NFS server you are using.  I have over 1500
>> clients backing up via 7 backuppc servers attached via nfs to a high
>> performance Exastore NAS device.  Works great.
> 
> Ah, yes, that's possible, I have a much "cheaper" environment - and also
> a setup smaller by magnitudes. I had the impression that many very small
> disk accesses (as backuppc does when checking for newer file version
> etc.) is already a bad disk usage pattern by itself. And NFS didn't
> handle it better either ...
> 
> Anyway, nice to know that a specialized NAS device could help there.

Usually you are waiting on disk head motion - and if you run nfs in sync 
mode you wait for completion on every write.  The things that can help 
are lots of physical disks in the volume (better odds for the head to 
already be near the right place) and running async with lots of 
buffering.  Expensive devices might even have some battery-backed or 
nonvolatile buffering.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/