|
Re: [BackupPC-users] hardware and configuration recommendations for speed?
2010-05-28 01:49:10
Hi Frank,
Before going out shopping for hardware, I'd try and determine where
your performance problem is, ie on the server (due to external USB
based storage), or on the client.
It does seem to me that you are having a performance issue on the
system to be backed up, and assuming there isn't all sorts of junk
software running on the XP Home system that makes rsyncd compete for
the already slow disk subsystem, I would take a look at the rsyncd
installation. (I have seen active Antivirus make rsyncd max out a
processor)
I have seen some poor results on some Windows XP systems with
Cygwin myself as well, using the aged 2.6.8 rsyncd package distributed
from the BackupPC sourceforge site.
There are various guides on getting a more recent cygwin/rsyncd
installed on Windows, or for a quick switch-and-test you can install
DeltaCopy on the XP Home system for a quick trial run.
On the hardware for the new server, I pretty much agree with Les - use
single disk or RAID1 for an uncomplicated fast setup. Stay away from
RAID5.
Drive spindle speed is the main thing you want to focus on, especially
if the server will be backing up multiple clients simultaneously.
--
Kim Pedersen
On 2010-05-26 09:58, Frank J. Gómez wrote:
There
is nothing intrinsic about Windows XP Home, cygwin/rsyncd
(especially with cygwin 1.7), and BackupPC that should be causing your
backups to be significantly worse than backing up a Linux system.
Are those other machines also Windows XP Home or are they linux?
The other machines are Windows 7.
USB
drives are slow and the problem may be exacerbated if the pool is
on a USB drive and you are not doing checksum caching.
Yes, that's two strikes against me. But checksum caching won't help me
with the initial backup, which takes 8+ hours.
Right now I'm leaning toward a 5-drive setup. One drive for the
operating system, and the rest for the pool in a RAID 0+1 array, which,
according to http://www.z-a-recovery.com/art-raid.htm,
will allow me to write twice as fast as with a single disk and which
will tolerate disk failure fairly well. I guess it's a slight step up
from Les's original suggestion.
One thing I'm not sure about with regard to RAID 0+1 arrays is how to
recover from a disk failure. I understand that if you replace a drive
in a RAID5, its contents are rebuilt using the parity on the other
drives -- you can rebuild the array without powering down the machine
(assuming you have hot-swappable drives). Is this possible for a RAID
0+1 configuration? If not, I guess there's no point in paying the
premium for hot-swappable drives.
Thanks!
-Frank
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
|
|
|
