Les Mikesell wrote:

> You still haven't said whether this is the first run where the files are
> actually copied or not - if not you shouldn't expect much network
> activity.  How long would it take the target to read all it's files?
> Something like 'time tar -cf - / | cat >/dev/null' would be a reasonable
> test.  (Don't do -cf /dev/null with gnutar because it will cheat and not
> read the files.)  That would be the fastest an rsync run could possibly
> complete with the --ignore times option even if you don't transfer any
> data or create new files on the server.

This is the initial backup of the server. I am only running 1 session at a
time until I solve this bandwidth problem.

>> Now if you tell me my hardware isn't fast enough, the BackupPC server is
>> a
>> dual Opteron 2.2 Ghz with 8 GB RAM and 24 300GB drives in a 3ware RAID5
>> array, it isn't.
>
> Either end can limit the speed.  How many concurrent runs do you do?
> Also, you should expect much faster rates if you have a few large files
> than if you have millions of tiny ones.

I am retrying the same server with --ignore-times but it doesn't seem to
be any faster.

-- 
Jeremy Mann
jeremy AT biochem.uthscsa DOT edu

University of Texas Health Science Center
Bioinformatics Core Facility
http://www.bioinformatics.uthscsa.edu
Phone: (210) 567-2672


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
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/