Jason Voorhees:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com> 
wrote:
> >> So do you believe these speeds of my backups are normal? I though my
> >> Library tape with LTO-5 tapes could write at 140 MB/s approx. It
> >> isn't possible to achieve higher speeds?
> > 
> > You need to speed up your source filesystem to achieve better
> > performance. Use raid10 or get a SSD. It has nothing at all to do with
> > your tape or bacula speed if you hard drive can not read what it needs
> > to backup at the maximum network speed. Or do not worry so much how
> > much time a single backup is taking and enable concurrency and
> > spooling. These will better utilize  the speed of your tape drive.
> > 
> > 
> > John
> 
> strange!, I ran a hdparm test at the fileserver (the source of backup)
> and I get a better performance:
> 
> [root@qsrpsfs1 ~]# hdparm -t /dev/mapper/mpath0
> 
> /dev/mapper/mpath0:
>  Timing buffered disk reads:  622 MB in  3.00 seconds = 207.20 MB/sec

This is a measure for your peak i/o performance. Average performance will 
be between 10% to 80% of that, depending on your file mix, moon phase and 
personal karma.

To see wether the file system is indeed the bottleneck you could try to tar 
the fs to /dev/null and compare the transfer rate to that of your bacula 
backup.

regards,
        Dietz

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network 
management toolset available today.  Delivers lowest initial 
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/whatsupgold-sd

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users