Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Slow Backups to Disk?

2015-05-22 13:30:42
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Slow Backups to Disk?
From: Lloyd Brown <lloyd_brown AT byu DOT edu>
To: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:26:49 -0600
Not an expert, but it seems like you need to determine whether the
problem is with bacula, or something underlying.

Even if it's just a quick test, I would copy a large file to the
destination, and time it, to figure out if the non-bacula transfer speed
is consistent with the bacula backup jobs or not.

If both bacula and non-bacula transfers to that destination are
approximately the same speed, then it's probably something underlying.
Possibly the USB bus, or the drives themselves.  Possibly even the
drive's underlying filesystem and FS tuning parameters (if any).

If the two transfer speeds are inconsistent (most likely much faster for
the non-bacula copy, than the bacula job), then I would look at bacula
tuning.  Like Heitor, I'd recommend looking at the database first.  I
know that we saw a massive speedup when I moved our bacula db tables
from MyISAM tables to InnoDB tables, and massively increased how much of
the table that the MySQL daemon kept in RAM.  It was pretty dramatic.
But then again, we have a very large database, so I'm not sure how
applicable this will be for you.

Lloyd Brown
Systems Administrator
Fulton Supercomputing Lab
Brigham Young University
http://marylou.byu.edu

On 05/22/2015 03:28 AM, Charles Tassell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>    I'm using external USB drives setup with the vchanger system to 
> simulate a tape library, and I've got a problem where the backups are 
> running horrendously slow.  IE, the full backup of my small server 
> (5.5GB) takes 8 hours and 10 minutes, and the backup of my 690GB file 
> server takes 5-6 DAYS.  The problem doesn't seem to be the USB drives 
> themselves as I can push 3GB/minute to them easily which means the 690GB 
> backup should take under 6 hours.
> 
>    Does anyone know what could be going on here?  Right now the Bacula 
> director and storage-director are running on the file server as I 
> thought that would be faster, but maybe that's a bad idea? There doesn't 
> seem to be a big load issue, at least not enough of one to make the 
> backups take 20-25x longer than with rsync...
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users