Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] bacula 5.0.1 and db issues - please, share your experience

2010-04-13 09:08:19
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] bacula 5.0.1 and db issues - please, share your experience
From: Matija Nalis <mnalis+bacula AT CARNet DOT hr>
To: Koldo Santisteban <ksantisteban AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:06:01 +0200
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Koldo Santisteban wrote:
> Hello
> I am working with bacula 5.0.1. On first stage i setup the server with
> bacula 5.0.1 and Mysql, but, when i need to restore i have found that "the
> bulid tree process" take 10-12 hours (or more). I have read all about this

Could you share more info on your environment ? MySQL version (and
specific settings like MyISAM/InnoDB buffers etc), hardware specs,
number of records in various tables (count(*) in File, Job, Path,
Filename...)

http://wiki.bacula.org/doku.php?id=faq#jobs_with_accurate_filesets_take_forever_deprecated
http://wiki.bacula.org/doku.php?id=faq#restore_takes_a_long_time_to_retrieve_sql_results_from_mysql_catalog

If you look into:
http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1472

it seems that the issue is only with bacula 5 series; bacula 3.0.3 and
lower are *much* faster (less then 10 minutes instead of 20+ hours).
The bug is being looked into currently.

Apart from this bug, there is also a discussion on this list with
subject "VirtualFull mysql query blocks other jobs for a?long time"
which tackles wider SQL issues...

> issues and i can see that no exists any "magic" solution. In order to solve
> it, i have migrate from mysql to postgre, but i can see the same symtopms.

Again, more data ? PostgreSQL version ? is it any faster (it should
be about 600% faster on same datasets according to links above) or
not ?

> Perhaps it works better, but, in my opnion, this is not serios on a
> production environment.

I agree. Apart from downgrading (which could be quite ok for you, but
it was not possible for us for other issues, like bug 1528) you could
reduce your file retention (it helps greatly)

Anyway, if you can, downgrade to 3.0.3; if you can't, look into bug
1472 and share your info.

> If it´s possible, i will appreciate it people share their experience with
> bacula last version and this kind of issues. A couple of month ago i
> finished to deploy bacula on my environment, but now, i am considering to go
> back all.

see the http://bugs.bacula.org/view.php?id=1472 for my info, and also
for things that fix it (like undefining new_db_get_file_list in
sql_get.c)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>