Never mind. Just reread your previous email, and realized you said that
bacula was 20-25x slower than rsync. So definitely look at the DB
tunings, especially if your DB is very large.
Lloyd Brown
Systems Administrator
Fulton Supercomputing Lab
Brigham Young University
http://marylou.byu.edu
On 05/22/2015 09:26 AM, Lloyd Brown wrote:
> 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
|
