On 9/15/2010 4:22 PM, George Adams wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies, Kenneth and Les.  Kenneth, do you find that SMB is 
> faster than rsync for backing up Windows boxes?
>
> Les, that' not good news if 2-3 hour incremental backups and 7 hour full 
> backups are par for the course.  Is the slowdown due to the network-transfer 
> time, or is some kind of checksum being run on every single one of the 
> 21,000+ files, even during an incremental backup?    If so, why isn't the 
> "--checksum-seed=32761" option making any difference?

On the full runs, the client side has to read every file and compute the 
checksum.  The caching only applies to the server side and it only 
starts working after the 2nd full including the file.  On the 
incrementals, it should only have to read the complete directory, 
transfer that, then transfer the changes.  That seems slow unless you 
have substantial changes since the previous full run.  But as I 
mentioned, be sure the server has enough RAM to hold the directory.

> Thanks.  It'd be nice if I could setup some blackout times for this Windows 
> PC, but unfortunately it gets turned on in the morning, used sporadically 
> (but consistently) during the day, then turned off at night.

Perhaps you could start a run manually when going to lunch or some other 
known slack time.  Or maybe the bulk of files could be moved to an 
always-on server and mapped back to this machine for access.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
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/