On 8/9/2010 4:23 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> On 04/08/10, Rory Campbell-Lange (rory AT campbell-lange DOT net) wrote:
>> On 03/08/10, Dan Langille (dan AT langille DOT org) wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2010 7:09 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, a batch insert is faster than a specfic insert, but the latter
>>>> should be done at the "written-to-tape" transaction time, and could be
>>>> done asynchronously, but in a transaction.
>>>
>>> So... don't use batch-insert. Go the single insert approach. I dare
>>> you. ;)
>>
>> Yes, I'm trying! I'm trying to do it properly by recompiling debian
>> stable backports and I'm running into library dependancy problems.
>
> Done. I've recompiled with batch inserts set to off.
>
> I tested spooling to see how this would work although it isn't strictly
> necessary for my situation (a single server with AoE and internal
> storage and a locally attached tape drive). The backup started running
> off disk at around 100MB/s and then spooling at around 100MB/s. The disk
> copy slowed down dramatically over the weekend due to contention due to
> some external MD5 audits and rsync processes.
Well, spooling data to disk first makes sense if your network cannot
keep up with your tape drive. You want to avoid start/stop on the tape.
Spooling attributes is different. You may want to try that on and then
off to see how things go. Off is what we wanted to avoid I think.
>
> I'm now going to play with non-spooled backups and some options such as
> noatime.
>
> Build OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu debian 5.0.5
> JobId: 1
> Job: HAbkp.2010-08-06_15.46.23_03
> Backup Level: Full
> Client: "clwbackup-fd" 5.0.2 (28Apr10)
> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,debian,5.0.5
> FileSet: "HAfileset" 2010-08-06 15:46:23
> Pool: "HAPool" (From Job resource)
> Catalog: "MyCatalog" (From Client resource)
> Storage: "CLW_LTO4" (From Job resource)
> Scheduled time: 06-Aug-2010 15:46:07
> Start time: 06-Aug-2010 15:46:25
> End time: 09-Aug-2010 18:23:16
> Elapsed time: 3 days 2 hours 36 mins 51 secs
> Priority: 10
> FD Files Written: 7,706,717
> SD Files Written: 7,706,717
> FD Bytes Written: 7,337,839,018,613 (7.337 TB)
> SD Bytes Written: 7,339,475,824,330 (7.339 TB)
> Rate: 27317.7 KB/s
> Software Compression: None
> VSS: no
> Encryption: no
> Accurate: no
> Volume name(s): HA-01|HA-02|HA-03|HA-04|HA-05|HA-06|HA-07
> Volume Session Id: 1
> Volume Session Time: 1281090914
> Last Volume Bytes: 896,114,386,944 (896.1 GB)
> Non-fatal FD errors: 0
> SD Errors: 0
> FD termination status: OK
> SD termination status: OK
> Termination: Backup OK
>
>
--
Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|
