On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Kimball Larsen <quangdog AT gmail DOT com>
> wrote:
>> We are a small office (6 employees) with a mixture of windows and mac
>> machines sitting on desks. I have set up a server (Ubuntu linux) that has
>> been happily running backuppc for several years handling backups for all the
>> machines in the office with grace AND style. We love it.
>>
>> However, in the last few months some of the users have noticed that when
>> backuppc is running a backup (incremental or full - does not seem to matter
>> which) it can have a serious impact to the performance of their local
>> machine. Stuff comes to a crawl and they are nearly unable to work because
>> simple things like switching from one application to another starts to take
>> several seconds, etc. The machine behaves like it is hammering swap space
>> and thrashing for memory. At least one user reports this goes on for
>> several hours (and I confirmed that his latest incremental took 119 minutes
>> to complete).
>>
>> All the machines affected in this way are wired to the gigabit network (not
>> wireless), and I'm using rsync for the transfer method. The users with the
>> complaints are all using OS X on late model high-end MacBook Pro laptops.
>>
>> Is there anything I can to to have the backups run in a more transparent
>> manner? We are not all that concerned with speed of backup process - we're
>> all here all day anyway, so as long as everyone gets a backup at least once
>> a day we're happy.
>
> Are you using any 'scan on access' type of virus protection? That
> would be odd for a Mac, but I think there are such things.
Nope, no realtime scanning stuff at all.
> Do any
> have local time machine backups that might be included?
No, time machine is on external drives, specifically excluded from backups.
> Or
> directories with very large numbers of files?
This I can check on. What is considered "very large numbers of files"? More
than 1024? More than 102400?
> I think the rsync at
> each end will keep a copy of the whole directory tree in memory while
> both ends walk and compare contents. Normally this would be very fast
> on incrementals where it doesn't do more than the directory check for
> files that match but the list might be big enough to swap to disk.
Hmm.. Does it produce a copy of the whole directory tree for each backup
location? If so, would it be beneficial to split up the backups such that
instead of telling it to backup
/Users/myusername/ I explicitly list each of the directories in my home:
/Users/myusername/Documents/
/Users/myusername/Library
...etc?
Thanks!
-- Kimball
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
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/
|