BackupPC-users

Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc 3.0.0: another xfs problem?

2008-12-18 18:58:39
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc 3.0.0: another xfs problem?
From: Adam Goryachev <mailinglists AT websitemanagers.com DOT au>
To: "General list for user discussion, questions and support" <backuppc-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:56:44 +1100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> Paul Mantz wrote at about 10:19:45 -0800 on Thursday, December 18, 2008:
>  > Hello Thomas,
>  >
>  > Did the BackupPC_nightly jobs take 22 hours on the 17th as well?  If
>  > they didn't, I would suspect that since you restored the TopDir from a
>  > tarball, that the hardlinking wasn't handled correctly in the tar
>  > compression.  BackupPC_nightly would have been re-establishing the
>  > de-duplication between the pc/ and pool/ directories all in one go,
>  > which could reasonably take that long.
>  >
>
> I don't think that BackupPC_nightly checks for hard link dups between
> the pc/ and pool/ directories. I believe that it only checks for pool
> files with nlink=1 (which are deleted) and for "chains" that need to
> be renumbered due to holes in the numbering. (also weekly, it updates
> the backupInfo files and deletes old logs). Unless there is a bug in
> the code or filesystem issues, it's hard to see what would cause such
> a relatively "simple" and "linear" routine to bog down like that.
>
> In fact, the whole reason I had to write my BackupPC_fixLinks.pl
> routine was to fix the various cases of pool duplications and missing
> links between pc/ and pool/

I would advise that you confirm whether or not your hard links were
restored properly:
cd /var/lib/backuppc/pool/3/3/3
for file in `ls`
do
        stat $file|grep Links|awk '{print $5" "$6}'
done

If they all come back as one or two, then you should see that you
haven't properly restored your pool. You should have some at least
greater than 10 depending on # backups you keep, # machines you backup,
etc...

The other possibility is that xfs is that much slower on your hardware,
with your mount options, etc... Perhaps look at the backuppc wiki for
some suggestions on improving performance on xfs.

Regards,
Adam

- --
Adam Goryachev
Website Managers
www.websitemanagers.com.au
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklK4zwACgkQGyoxogrTyiWY+wCfdsGDRrLMgTK7MeAnzzSb2ry4
9yIAn11AayXFW+QGyydxBiZgZgGkqID0
=ifhp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/