Phil Stracchino wrote:
> On 01/26/10 04:24, Ferdinando Pasqualetti wrote:
>   
>> Hello Cyril,
>> did you try using compression? Compression is done at client level, so,
>> if you have CPU power, you could get higher throughput.
>> In my eperience it is very hard to obtain a throughput higher than 50%
>> of nominal capacity of the wire.
>>     
>
> I cannot share that experience unless you're using a hub rather than a
> switch.
>
> Cyril, I would look at the load on all the machines involved,
> particularly the machine running the catalog and Director.  You also did
> not specify what you're backing up to.
>
>   
I'm backing up a big amount of small files (yes, it's the worst case), 
it's the homedirs of the users.

We only use switchs.

I tried iperf between the 2 servers, and it displays 89Mbit/s, so it's 
pretty good.

The server running the catalog and the director doesn't use a particular 
amount of ressources during the backup process.

Thanks.

-- 
Cyril LAVIER | Systems Administrator | LTU Technologies
132 Rue de Rivoli - 75001 Paris France
(tel) +33 (0)1 53 43 01 71 | (mail) clavier AT ltutech DOT com
LTU technologies - Making Sense of Visual Content |  www.LTUtech.com 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users