Re: [BackupPC-users] backuppc slow rsync speeds
2012-09-17 12:10:20
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote on 09/17/2012
11:51:09 AM:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Mark Coetser <mark AT tux-edo.co DOT za>
wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Its the first full run but its taking forever to complete, it
was running
> > for nearly 3 days!
>
> As long is it makes it through, don't make any judgements until after
> the 3nd full, and be sure you have set up checksum caching before
> doing the 2nd. Incrementals should be reasonably fast if you
don't
> have too much file churn but you still need to run fulls to rebase
the
> comparison tree.
I'm writing a longer reply, but here's a quick in-thread
reply:
I know exactly what you mean by waiting until after
the first full. Often the second full will be faster -- but only
*IF* you are bandwidth limited will you will see an improvement. In
this case, neither him nor I are bandwidth limited. I don't see an
improvement.
I am routinely limited to no more than 30MB to 60MB
per *minute* as the maximum performance for my rsync-based backups. This
is *really* pretty terrible. I also see that the system is at 100%
CPU usage when doing a backup. So, my guess is that the Perl-based
rsync used by BackupPC is to blame.
The other annoying part of this is that top shows
50% idle CPU. That's because I have two cores. One of them
is sitting there doing *nothing*, while the other is at 100%. The
icing on the cake is that there are *two* BackupPC_dump processes, each
trying to consume as much CPU as they can--but they're both on the same
core!
A typical top:
top - 13:07:44 up 36 min, 1 user, load
average: 1.97, 1.89, 1.52
Tasks: 167 total, 3 running, 164 sleeping,
0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 46.1%us, 2.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 49.4%id,
2.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 3924444k total, 3809232k used,
115212k free, 11008k buffers
Swap: 0k total,
0k used, 0k free, 3280072k
cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT
RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1731 backuppc 20 0 357m 209m
1344 R 100.0 5.5 24:14.07 BackupPC_dump
1679 backuppc 20 0 353m 205m
2208 R 92.5 5.4 21:54.89 BackupPC_dump
So, I have two CPU-bound tasks and they're both fighting
over the same core.
Is there anything that can be done about this?
A quick aside about checksum caching: I very
much *want* the ability to check to make sure if my backup data is corrupted
*before* there is an issue, so I do not use checksum caching. So,
yes, this puts much greater stress on disk I/O: both sides have to
recalculate the checksums for each and every file. But the client
can do it without monopolizing 100% of the CPU; the BackupPC side
should be able to, too...
Tim Massey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________
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/
|
|
|