MtK - SmartMtK wrote at about 21:15:01 +0300 on Friday, August 30, 2013:
 > > It's a lot of files that aren't organized in any particular way.   So
 > > assume the head is going to move for most directory/inode/data
 > > accesses and multiply by the time the disk takes to seek.
 > 
 > How is this different then having local disk?

I'm confused, before you seemed to imply that it was equally slow
locally.
(you had written "again, same behavior as when the pool was local, and
that's why I couldn't copy it to the new location.")

If it's only slow when you are doing du/find over NFS, then it's
obviously NFS (btw, not sure why you find 'ls' and 'df' to be slow,
they are a very different beast then the recursions required for 'du'
and 'find'). If not, then it's the number/scattering of your files
(plus/minus slow disks and hardware).

If it's NFS, then there are ways to speed it up. But NFS will always
be intrinsically slow since it is a file system on top of a file
system plus it is (typically) remotely mounted. There are ways to tune
NFS to get some better speed (by a severalfold factor in my
experience), using options like: async, noatime, nodiratime (with
async giving a substantial improvement performance).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
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/