|
Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC and lessfs
2010-03-06 11:37:19
According to the author's site, it is still much slower than a native filesystem.
As with any FUSE based filesystem, the copying of data from userspace to kernel and back adds enough latency to severely effect performance. Backuppc is extremely IO dependent on IO which is where FUSE is crippled.
FUSE is great for low performance need filesystems, especially for basic support of usually un-supported filesystems or specialty filesystems like SQLfs but its just too slow of something like backuppc.
we need btrfs with dedup! its is a planned feature but it could be years away.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Craig Barratt <cbarratt AT users.sourceforge DOT net> wrote:
Gerald writes:
> Has anybody looked into using BackupPC with lessfs? http://www.lessfs.com<http://www.lessfs.com/>
Overall lessfs looks promising.
Yes, I have looked into it, although I tested it with native rsync not
BackupPC. I did some benchmarking of lessfs with rsync to get an idea
of the performance. I used lessfs-0.2.0 (~9 months ago).
Overall the performance was significantly slower (more than an order
of magnitude) than a native file system. I'm not sure if I was doing
something wrong, or whether it is due to the FUSE overhear, or whether
things have improved in more recent versions. But I decided it wasn't
nearly fast enough to be useful for BackupPC.
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________
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/
|
|
|
