Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula performance so slow ???

2009-10-05 13:06:32
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Bacula performance so slow ???
From: Klaus Troeger <klaus AT linuxstar DOT de>
To: John Drescher <drescherjm AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:58:39 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

o.k., if my following estimation is true, you are right.

p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }

5-Oct 18:22 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Job write elapsed time = 00:09:13,
Transfer rate = 5.881 M bytes/second

05-Oct 18:22 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Committing spooled data to Volume
"DE1820". Despooling 3,259,489,919 bytes ...

05-Oct 18:24 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Despooling elapsed time =
00:01:32, Transfer rate = 35.42 M bytes/second

05-Oct 18:24 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Sending spooled attrs to the
Director. Despooling 36,499,907 bytes ...

05-Oct 18:25 denbvsbcks1-dir JobId 3: Bacula denbvsbcks1-dir 2.4.4
(28Dec08): 05-Oct-2009 18:25:11


Does it mean, that the spooling to disk was at avarage of 6 MB/sec,
and the writing to tape
reached the 35 MB/sec.

In that case, the raid ontroller has really a problem, because all is
SCSI U320 LVD.

In above constellation, i reinstalled everything and separated the OS
from the spooling
area (now OS is Raid-1, Spool-area stays at Raid-5)

Thanks

Klaus


John Drescher wrote:
>> Physical drive performance is 28sec for 1 Gigabyte, so ~35MB/sec
>>
>> [root@denbvsbcks1 disk1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1024
>> count=1000000 1000000+0 records in 1000000+0 records out
>> 1024000000 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 79.907 s, 12.8 MB/s
>
> I am confused. This looks horribly slow. I would expect over 200 MB
> /s for raid 5 writing. Over 90MB /s for a single SATA2 drive.
>
>> [root@denbvsbcks1 disk1]# date;tar cvf /dev/nst0 swapfile ;date
>> Fri Oct  2 06:00:22 CEST 2009 swapfile Fri Oct  2 06:00:50 CEST
>> 2009
>>
> Its no good to test an LTO drive with a file full of zeros.
> Actually with this file you should get > 60 MB /s with LTO2 tapes
> because zeros will compress down to almost nothing.
>
>> So, it's not the physical hardware, it has to be Bacula itself.
>>
>
> I must be misreading you but this looks like your hardware / os is
> performing very badly or you are using the slowest hardware you
> could find.
>
>
> John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrKJb4ACgkQzEBPDKWHbs91JQCfeR9OXnu4/9GS0sBumphvGjV1
p8wAnjzXu5tw6WkxTuHdJWmq/4EGQ6B+
=vXtt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry&reg; Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9&#45;12, 2009. Register now&#33;
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users