Holikar, Sachin (ext) wrote:
> Thanks Mr. Drescher for the reply.
>
> 1. We will surely give it a try for using latest Bacula version and see
> if it improves any performance.
> 2. The system on which Bacula is loaded , is having good configuration
> like 4 GB of RAM and 2.80 GHz.
> 3. There is no database backup as such. What we do is just take the
> system level full backup.
>   

I believe he was suggesting that the Bacula catalog database might be 
stored on the same file system that is being backed up. Since Bacula 
must write to its catalog database frequently during a backup, that 
would cause disk thrashing and greatly affect performance.

> 4. Yes spooling is ON. Size of the spool area is 6 GB at present. We
> read thru the docs and they say spooling might slow down the backup
> process.
>    So should we disable the spooling? We did some testing by disabling
> the spooling and we got better speed as 120 GB per hour as compared to
> with spooling ie 50 GB / hour. 
>
> But we still feel that there must be some other areas which are
> bottlenecks wrt Bacula. As we should atleast be getting 70-80% of the
> non-bacula transfer rate 200 GB / hour.
>
> Kindly suggest if there are any parameters from Bacula (Or from Tape
> Library) perspective which we can fiddle aroud with to see we get better
> performance?
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drescher [mailto:drescherjm AT gmail DOT com] 
> Sent: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2009 16:31
> To: Holikar, Sachin (ext)
> Cc: Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula giving slow speed
>
>   
>> We are using Bacula to take the backups onto the Tape Library Fujitsu
>> FibreCAT Tx48 Library.  The bacula version we are using is 2.2.7.
>>
>>     
> That is a old version. You will get better performance with the current
> release.
>   
>> Problem is we get very slow backup speed , around 50 GB per hour
>>     
> whereas in
>   
>> ideal scenario the above mentioned tape library gives 288 GB / Hour
>>     
> transfer
>   
>> rate.
>>
>> We have performed the tests without using Bacula  and we got somewhat
>>     
> close
>   
>> to 200 GB/Hr transfer rate.
>>
>> Could you guys point us in right direction?
>>
>>     
> You need to run tests to find out what the bottleneck is. Do you have
> your database on the same array as what you are backing up? Are you
> using spooling? What database are you using? Is it indexed properly?
> Is the machine you are backing up a modern machine (2GHz or better
> with 2 or more cores and at least 2GB of memory)? Are you benchmarking
> a Full backup?
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> SourcForge Community
> SourceForge wants to tell your story.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users