Eric Dantan Rzewnicki schrieb:

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:08:02PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 03:23:34PM +0200, Vlad Popa wrote:

Hi Jon ,
Jon LaBadie schrieb:

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:53:57PM +0200, Vlad Popa wrote:

Hello Jon !
Jon LaBadie schrieb:

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:05:21PM +0200, Vlad Popa wrote:
I'll ask Paul's question slightly differently.
How can you WANT to run any slower (see below).

DUMP SUMMARY:

HOSTNAME DISK L ORIG-kB OUT-kB COMP% MMM:SS KB/s MMM:SS KB/s -------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------ h50234 /etc 0 2440 2440 -- 0:03 930.1 9:26 4.3

This was your biggest, and speediest successful taping.
It only ran at 4300 bytes/sec
Something is seriously wrong with your network connection to your vtape.
I strongly urge you to fix your network connection rather than continue
to try to get amanda (or any application) to work with a broken network.

You are absolutely right Jon, but I cannot tweak more the lufs.

I was thinking more of the hardware end of the setup.  There have been
frequent mentions of poor network performance when a switch and host
are not configured correctly.  Sometimes depending on the auto-config
feature of the switch or host does not give the best connection.

I have tested native ftp transfers to this host (beside lufs) which were at about 4.3 mb per sec ("ftp hostname" and then "put file ..") for several files differring significantly in their size. The rate did not fall below 4 megs per sec.

Just an interesting observation, amanda sees 4.3 kb/sec, you got 4.3 mb/sec
for ftp transfers.
No other way to access that remote disk than still beta lufs and ftp?

Nope, no other way than ftp access. Using lufs or not using it is up to me. I will never see this server . We have rented a root server which is probably located in Berlin or elsewhere. The rent is including access to a ftp share on their server for backups) . We have only some kind of console and ssh access.

If you have ssh access you should be able to use rsync, no?

Vlad Popa

Or perhaps try scp just to see if the slowness is specific to lufs/ftp.