On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Timo Neuvonen <timo-news AT tee-en DOT net> 
wrote:
> "Hayden Katzenellenbogen" <hayden AT nextlevelinternet DOT com> kirjoitti 
> viestissä
> news:88BC6885D33A9D42A1CCB45E8749525ED1551F AT 
> pigeon.sandiego.nextlevelinternet DOT com...
>> Everyone,
>>
>> I currently have a single server with 2.5TB of local data that I need to
>> back up. The problem I am running into is that the server only has a
>> 100Mb/s network card so I am limited to 12MB/s of data transfer. I
>> thought using the loopback interface would give better speed but it
>> seems that I get identical results.
>>
>> Is there a way to have Bacula read directly off the file system (not a
>> raw partition) instead of relying on a network transfer.
>>
>
> I think the network card speed is not a problem here, since it's not used
> for actual data transfer. Just a coincidence you happen to reach 100M/8
> rate.
>
>
>> Has anyone had a similar experience with a creative solution. (This
>> could be something obvious I have missed).
>>
>
> My first guess is that database & filesystem performance could be the
> bottleneck. Do you have the catalog files on the same physical disk, that
> you are backing up? And where do you write the data, to the same physical
> disk, maybe? All that could cause a lot of disk seek activity. Maybe adding
> memory might speed it up, since the OS could buffer more data. And if you
> can somehow enable disk write cache too... but it would involve problems if
> the system ever happens to crash.
>

Also, if the storage is a disk volume disable compression.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users