Ralf Gross wrote:
> 
> 
> After all I've read, switching to rsync instead of tar doesn't seem to be a
> better choice.

After the 1st 2 fulls, rsync should be better if you have enabled checksum 
caching.  You do need plenty of RAM to hold the directory listing if you have a 
large number of files.

> Disk I/O on the file server doesn't seem to be the bottleneck either. I can
> boost the disk I/O during backup with other tools (dd, cat, bonnie++) to more
> than 50 MB/s.

If you have a lot of small files, the access pattern and speed won't match 
benchmark tests.  And these days, 50 MB/s sounds kind of slow to deal with 
terrabytes.  Even with rsync you'll have to read all of the files on the target 
side during full runs.

> Any ideas if I can tune my BackupPC settings to speed things up?

Throwing RAM at the server is likely to help.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT 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/