On 6/30/2011 2:04 PM, C. Ronoz wrote:
> I ran bacula and it backed up this ENTIRE client in like 7 minutes. After 40 
> minutes, backuppc has only backed up a measly 300MB... of a total of 1.5GB. I 
> am not even sure how much aready was in-use on the partition after creating 
> the new partition.
>
> root@backuppc:~# df -h
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda1              19G  1.4G   17G   8% /
> tmpfs                 502M     0  502M   0% /lib/init/rw
> udev                  497M  112K  497M   1% /dev
> tmpfs                 502M     0  502M   0% /dev/shm
> /dev/mapper/vg0-lvol0
>                        197G  512M  195G   1% /var/lib/backuppc
> root@backuppc:~# date
> Thu Jun 30 20:05:49 CEST 2011
> root@backuppc:~# df -h
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda1              19G  1.4G   17G   8% /
> tmpfs                 502M     0  502M   0% /lib/init/rw
> udev                  497M  112K  497M   1% /dev
> tmpfs                 502M     0  502M   0% /dev/shm
> /dev/mapper/vg0-lvol0
>                        197G  565M  195G   1% /var/lib/backuppc
> root@backuppc:~# date
> Thu Jun 30 20:24:42 CEST 2011
>
> How can I decrease load? Can I disable deduplication or compression? The load 
> is very high. This back-up server (virtual machine) has a powerful processor, 
> although only 1GB memory (that is not fully used). Even running this simple 1 
> job is very very slow.  See http://images.codepad.eu/v-ISmSn6.png for high 
> cpu usage.

Running in a VM imposes a lot of overhead.  Running LVM on top of a file 
based disk image pretty much guarantees that your disk block writes 
won't be aligned with the physical disk which makes things much slower. 
  Can you at least give the vm a real partition if that isn't one 
already? And you definitely need to be sure you aren't sharing that 
physical disk with anything else. More ram would probably help just by 
providing more filesystem buffering even if you don't see it being used 
otherwise.  You can turn off compression, but unless CPU capacity is the 
problem it won't help and might make things worse due to more physical 
disk activity.

> Last time this back-up ran succesfully for the entire server (1.7GB) it took 
> more than 12 hours (after which I manually canceled the back-up). This 
> back-up job ran in 7 minutes(!) on Bacula. I however would prefer to use 
> BackupPC in the future and I hope people can help me getting decent 
> performance.

Backuppc will never be as fast as other systems, but the main situations 
where the difference should be big are where you have a huge number of 
small files (enough that the copy of the directory that is transferred 
first pushes into swap) or when copying huge files with differences 
where the server has to uncompress the existing copy and reconstruct it.

After you have completed 2 fulls, you may see a speed increase on 
unchanged files if you are using the --checksum-seed option.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
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/