On 04/07/2013 02:26 PM, backuppc AT kosowsky DOT org wrote:
> Gary Roach wrote at about 13:43:28 -0700 on Sunday, April 7, 2013:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am modifying my whole backup system for greater volume and speed. The
> > new system is as follows:
> >
> > Software - Backuppc using rsync (without SSH)
> > Server - D865PERL Motherboard
> > Pentium 4 - 2.4 GHz Processor
> > IDE System hard drive
> > SATA, 1 TB WD green backup data storage disk. (S/B
> > 1.5 Gb/S)
> > 1GB system memory
> > PCI bus
> > Intel PWLA8391GT PRO/1000 GT PCI Network Adapter
> > Cat 6 cable
> >
> > Clients (2)
> > Intel DP55KG motherboard
> > Intel i5-750 Processor 4 core, 2.66 GHz
> > Hard Drive - Western Digital WD5000AADS -500GB, 32MB
> > Cache, SATAII (3 Gb/s)
> > PCIX bus
> > 2 GB system memory
> > Intel Gigabit CT PCI-E Network Adapter EXPI9301CTBLK
> > Cat 6 Cable
> >
> > I have read all sorts of complaints about this type setup and need some
> > advice.
>
> I am not aware of *any* general complaints about any general
> hardware. Complaints if any typically reflect a lack of understanding
> about how BackupPC works or unrealistic expectations of performance
> relative to the size/number of backups on the one hand and network
> bandwidth and to lesser extents CPU speeds and disk setup on the
> other.
>
> That being said, I am puzzled by your statement that you are
> "modifying my whole backup system for greater volume and speed", yet
> your server setup seems to be based on 10 year old technology -
> Pentium 4 2.4GHz (presumably single core), 1GB DRAM, IDE system drive
> and a WD Green (i.e.., exact opposite of a performance) data disk. In
> fact, it would be harder to imagine a *less* suitable hardware setup
> if you are interested in greater volume and speed.
>
> Now this doesn't mean that BackupPC won't run on such a setup -- indeed, my
> home backup server is approaching 10 years and has only slightly
> better hardware (p4 2.8GHz, 2GB DRAM, pair of RAID1 Seagate
> (non-green) 1TB drives). It works fine for me but it is at the low end of
> performance. I get about 5-6 MB/sec max (on a 100bps ethernet). Of
> course, my backup backup server is even lower powered being an 800MHz
> ARM plugcomputer with 512MB DRAM and a USB hard drive... but it's slow.
>
> > It would appear that I should get around 1 Gbit/S transfer rate
> > for continuous data transfer. If this is not true, why not and what can
> > I realistically expect.
>
> How would you ever expect to get 1 Gbit/second????
>
> First, while you mention that your ethernet cards are GigE, you don't
> say anything about your actual network speed being GigE which would
> require a GigE router/switch.
>
> Second, GigE can't even do 1 Gbit/second raw data transfers due to the
> ethernet (and other) protocol overheads plus collisions, etc. Even
> under ideal conditions, one would get a good fraction less than 1
> Gbit/second.
>
> Third, your old IDE-based motherboard (even with onboard SATA
> adapters) is unlikely to have more than about 150 mbit/sec capacity.
>
> Fourth, while your drive may have a 1.5Gb/sec interface and may in
> burst mode approach such a speed when reading/writing from its buffer,
> there is no way it can do sustained transfers anywhere near that
> speed -- especially Green drives that are optimized for power usage
> and not for performance.
>
> Finally, how do you expect your lowly p4 2.4GHz to keep up with rsync
> at anything approaching 1 Gbit/second let alone any of the overhead of
> BackupPC (and in particular compression).
>
> My guess is that if you don't have a true GigE network (including your
> router/switch), you are unlikely to get more than about 6-8 mbit/sec
> (i.e. .006 - .008 Gbit/sec). If you have a GigE network, maybe you can
> expect to get a little more before your motherboard and cpu are rate
> limiting.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
> Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire
> the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the
> Employer Resources Portal
> http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
Thank you all for you input.
Some clarification:
The router/switch is being replaced with a Verizon M1424 Gegabit
device.
I plan on increasing the memory on the server.
This is a home system and the real need for the re-do is to get
more storage space.
I don't need a high rel system assuming that all of the computers
are not going to fail at the same time. ( a chance I am willing to take
for cost reduction)
While these are home systems, they still run 24/7 and power
consumption is a consideration.
I have my backups staggered so that full backups happen on
different days.
The amount of file churning is relatively low.
Above, do you really mean that I could expect transfer rates as low
as 600 to 800 KB/S. I could carry the data in a bucket faster. I don't
have a real good figure for the transfer rates for my present setup but
know they are way faster than that.
I am getting the idea that putting in a GigE system isn't going to buy
much speed. Any comments?
Gary R.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire
the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the
Employer Resources Portal
http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
_______________________________________________
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/
|
