On 7/26/11 3:13 PM, C. Ronoz wrote:
>
> I would love to use BackupPC and if I can get it to speeds of 4 or 5 MB per 
> second I would be thrilled. I just benchmarked both a BackupPC and Bacula 
> back-up (not simultanously) and BackupPC ran 3 hours, 10 minutes for 15GB, 
> while Bacula did it in 17 minutes.

Some things that will kill performance:

Lots of tiny files, especially combined with a shortage of RAM (rsync transfers 
the entire directory listing and holds it in memory before starting the 
transfer).

Huge sparse files (but not many other things handle them well either).

Running in a VM.  Worst case is probably a VM with an LVM on a virtual disk 
with 
sparse allocation (growing as needed).

Anything else with activity on the same physical disk competing for head 
position.

--
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
_______________________________________________
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/