Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+backuppc\s+slow\s+rsync\s+speeds\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[BackupPC\-users\]\s+backuppc\s+slow\s+rsync\s+speeds\s*$/: 54 ]

Total 54 documents matching your query.

1. [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Mark Coetser ; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:08:49 +0200; Hi backuppc 3.1.0-9.1 rsync 3.0.7-2 OK I have a fairly decent spec backup server with 2 gigabit e1000 nics bonned together and running in bond mode 0 all working 100%. If I run plain rsync between th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00043.html (15,104 bytes)
2. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Tim Fletcher <tim AT night-shade.org DOT uk>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:50:39 +0300; You are being hit by disk io speeds, check you dont have atime turned on on the fs. Also it's worth considering tar instead of rsync for this sort of work load. -- Sent from a mobile device Tim Fletc; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00045.html (17,718 bytes)
3. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Mark Coetser ; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:59:34 +0200; Hi Surely disk io would affect normal rsync as well? Normal rsync and even nfs get normal transfer speeds its only rsync within backuppc that is slow. Thank you, Mark Adrian Coetser -- Live Security; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00046.html (13,477 bytes)
4. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Frédéric Massot <frederic AT juliana-multimedia DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:18:29 +0200; Le 17/09/2012 14:50, Tim Fletcher a écrit : Hi, Is the relatime option is acceptable to replace atime? Regards. -- == ==Debian=GNU/Linux== -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event wil; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00048.html (15,034 bytes)
5. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: "Tyler J. Wagner" <tyler AT tolaris DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:01:30 +0100; Unless you are using mutt on the BackupPC server, use noatime. There is no longer any common use for file access time. Regards, Tyler -- "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00049.html (14,794 bytes)
6. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:01:25 -0500; Backuppc uses its own rsync implementation in perl on the server side so it will probably not match the native version's speed. Is this the first or 2nd full run? On the first it will have to compres; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00050.html (14,028 bytes)
7. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Mark Coetser ; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:16:29 +0200; Its the first full run but its taking forever to complete, it was running for nearly 3 days! Thank you, Mark Adrian Coetser -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00052.html (14,471 bytes)
8. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:51:09 -0500; On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mark Coetser wrote: As long is it makes it through, don't make any judgements until after the 3nd full, and be sure you have set up check; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00053.html (14,187 bytes)
9. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:19 -0400; Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote on 09/17/2012 11:51:09 AM: wrote: was running don't the I'm writing a longer reply, but here's a quick in-thread reply: I know exactly what you mean; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00055.html (18,601 bytes)
10. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Rodrigo Severo <rodrigo AT fabricadeideias DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:22:23 -0300; On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Mark Coetser wrote: Its the first full run but its taking forever to complete, it was running for nearly 3 days! I'm seeing similar iss; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00056.html (14,889 bytes)
11. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:54:35 -0400; Mark Coetser wrote on 09/17/2012 03:08:49 AM: 3.1.0-9.1 3.0.7-2 nics run complete. rsync I have several very similar configurations. Here's an example: Atom D510 (1.66GHz; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00057.html (27,486 bytes)
12. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:58:28 -0400; Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote on 09/17/2012 11:01:25 AM: wrote: and even that is slow. Sadly, I think this is where the problem lies. and But doesn't this get done at the link sta; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00058.html (17,108 bytes)
13. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:00:56 -0400; Mark Coetser wrote on 09/17/2012 11:16:29 AM: *IF* the backup is bandwidth-limited, the first run will take longer than subsequent runs. How much depends on how bandwidth-; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00059.html (16,229 bytes)
14. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:03:09 -0400; wrote: For the first run, pay attention to network utilization. There are no existing files for BackupPC to do anything with: it's basically absorbing a bunch of new files. So you are most likely goi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00060.html (16,525 bytes)
15. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:34:33 -0500; On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com> wrote: The 2nd might even be slower, since the server side has to decompress and recompute the checksums. I'd blame the; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00061.html (16,615 bytes)
16. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: John Rouillard <rouilj-backuppc AT renesys DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:05:28 +0000; My last full backup of a 2559463.2 MB backup ran 306.9 minutes. Which if I am doing my math right is 138MB/s. This was overlapping in i/o with 9 other backups in various backup stages. My backup driv; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00062.html (23,274 bytes)
17. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: John Rouillard <rouilj-backuppc AT renesys DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:33:34 +0000; I have another system that is lower power: 2632652.8 MB at 662.5 minutes or 66MB/s the BackupPC system is a 4 core system with Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2216 (2412.400 MHz). 16GB of memory; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00063.html (16,065 bytes)
18. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:44:20 -0500; On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Timothy J Massey <tmassey AT obscorp DOT com> wrote: The only quick-fix would be if there are some top-level directories where it would make sense to divide the targ; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00064.html (17,895 bytes)
19. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Tim Fletcher <tim AT night-shade.org DOT uk>; Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:56:58 +0300; No it won't in the same way, you are basically asking rsync to walk the large and complex file tree checking the date of every file, where as with a full rsync all you are asking for is "next file, n; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00065.html (15,262 bytes)
20. Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds (score: 1): Author: Frédéric Massot <frederic AT juliana-multimedia DOT com>; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:09:06 +0200; Le 17/09/2012 17:01, Tyler J. Wagner a écrit : Hi, From what I've read, the new kernel mount the ext4 filesystem with acl and relatime options by default. So for backuppc, add options noacl, norelati; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/BackupPC-users/2012-09/msg00066.html (15,489 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]