On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Dan Pritts <danno AT umich DOT edu> wrote:
> NFS just isn't going to perform very well with lots of small files &
> directories, or other metadata-intensive operations.
>

It might help a bit to run the NFS connection on a different
subnet/interface than the target system since for rsync you'll be
loading the whole file from the nfs side for the block checksum
comparisons and to copy the base for merging changes.

But, keep in mind that performance may change after your initial runs
since rsync incrementals touch much less data.    Also, if you use the
checksum seed option, after the 2nd full backup of a file the server
side no longer needs to read and uncompress it even for subsequent
full runs.  You might find that you can live with the performance.
Depending on your schedule, it might work out to force a full run on a
Friday evening so it - and the subsequent weekly fulls will have the
weekend to complete, and unless you have a lot of changed files the
weekday incrementals should be much faster.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Acceleration Library.
Click to learn more.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=278785351&iu=/4140
_______________________________________________
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/