Il 30/05/2013 12:56, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
> On 30/05/13 18:13, Nicola Scattolin wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 10:04, Adam Goryachev ha scritto:
>>> On 30/05/13 16:57, Nicola Scattolin wrote:
>>>> hi,
>>>> i have a problem in full backups of a 2TB disk.
>>>> when backuppc do fullbackup it takes on average 1866.0 minutes while the
>>>> incremental backup takes around 20 minutes.
>>>> do you think there is something wrong or it's just for the amount of
>>>> data to be backupd?
>>> Most likely this is a limitation of bandwidth, CPU, or memory on either
>>> the backuppc server, or the machine being backed up.
>>>
>>> Have you enabled checksum-seed in your config?
>>> Are you even using rsync?
>>>
>>> Remember a full backup will read the full content of every file (talking
>>> about rsync because I will assume that is what you are using) on both
>>> the client and backuppc server. A incremental only looks at file
>>> attributes such as size and timestamp.
>>>
>>> Can you be more detailed about your configuration, and during a full
>>> backup look at memory utilisation on both backuppc server and the client.
>>>
>>> PS, this question is asked regularly, so you should also look at the
>>> archives to see the previous discussions (which have been very detailed,
>>> and sometimes heated).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Adam
>>>
>> i use smb to transfer file, and there are not be cpu or bandwidth
>> limitation, it's a local server.
>> where is the checksum-seed option? i can't find it
>
> OK, so this is even more obvious.
>
> An incremental will only look at the timestamp, and transfer all files
> newer than the timestamp of the previous backup.
> A full will transfer ALL files, therefore this is disk I/O + network
> bandwidth limited.
>
> 2TB of data will take 335 minutes at 1Gbps (assuming you can read from
> the source disk at least 1Gbps, and write to the destination disk at
> 1Gbps, and utilise 100% of source/destination disk bandwidth as well as
> 100% of network bandwidth, and there was nil overhead for handling each
> individual filename/etc...
>
> You are getting just under 20MB/sec, which is probably not unreasonable.
>
> As mentioned, if you want it faster, you will need to determine where
> the bottleneck is, which means looking at disk IO (most likely), network
> bandwidth, CPU (especially if you use compression on the backuppc
> server), etc...
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
i have checked the disk usage and the i/o that backuppc output me in the
summary page, and 7.37 is Mb/sec is the value i got.
The server is virtualized but the hardisk is linked directly to the
virtual machine in mirroring raid, do you thing is a good speed or could
be better?
--
Nicola Scattolin
Ser.Tec s.r.l.
Via E. Salgari 14/E
31056 Roncade, Treviso
http://dpidgprinting.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET
Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost.
Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1
_______________________________________________
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/
|
