On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Brian Debelius wrote:

> John Drescher wrote:
> > In linux, I find this to be completely wrong. I have 15TB of software
> > raid 6 and the most load that it puts on the cpu is around 7% and
> > these are raid arrays that net over 200MB/s writes on single core
> > systems that are 3 or so years old.

> So what do you think a reasonable cpu for bacula would be?

I'm running spooling on a 4 drive software raid0 quite happily on a 4Gb
3GHz P4D machine. The limiting factors are disk head seek time(*) when
running concurrent backups to 2 LTO2 drives and available SATA ports.
Because of that I'm considering dropping in solid state disks.

(*) The SD array is more than fast enough to drive a single LTO4 drive for
one backup, but when driving 2 LTO2 drives and running up to 6
simultaneous backups, the heads thrash quite hard and throughput slows by
50%. Installing 15krpm drives over the existing 7500rpm ones won't help as
that only reduces seek time by about 10-15%.

This machine also has the Bacula director and Mysql on it, Mysql is the
main memory hog, with the director coming in as the CPU hog. The biggest
single problem is memory - due to the database size (40Gb bacula dumps)
and the existing desktop-class motherboard is maxed out for that.

AB



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users