"Bacula sucks the vital essence from your computer" says the slogan... and
somehow it now looks true to me (though not the way it was meant to)
After years of some experience with Linux&Bacula combination, I finally
started making some experiments with Windows client. After a few very (not
so nicely) surprising experiencies in production environment, I set up a
testbech with oldish 2.8 GHz (800 MHz FSB) Dual-Core P4 and 1 GB of memory,
pata-interfaced 80 GB had drive, gigabit ethernet.
Testbench was running a clean Windows XP sp3 with Winbacula 3.0.3a. No
antivirus stuff (yet), no real applications, nothing to cause any extra
mess.
Fileset contains basically /WINDOWS/system32 directory. It's something I
could find from every system I tried before this testbench.
The very basic test result:
Elapsed time: 2 mins 35 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 4,648
SD Files Written: 4,648
FD Bytes Written: 664,739,011 (664.7 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 665,458,318 (665.4 MB)
Rate: 4288.6 KB/s
Software Compression: None
VSS: yes
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
Then, after adding lowest-level (GZIP1) compression:
Elapsed time: 2 mins 43 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 4,648
SD Files Written: 4,648
FD Bytes Written: 308,509,378 (308.5 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 309,228,685 (309.2 MB)
Rate: 1892.7 KB/s
Software Compression: 53.6 %
VSS: yes
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
Basically, it takes the same amount of real time to run the same job, and
some more cpu load, but no peak in workstation's cpu load meter exceeded
50%.
Any ideas what is the bottleneck here? I think 1GB of memory should be
enough for XP alone. Some glue makes me think about the disk, but this rate
is a decade below what to expect from even that old hard disk.
Finally, for reference purposes I installed antivirus sw (NOD32) to the
testbench, it drops only about 10% of the rate above:
Elapsed time: 2 mins 51 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 4,657
SD Files Written: 4,657
FD Bytes Written: 665,372,665 (665.3 MB)
SD Bytes Written: 666,093,882 (666.0 MB)
Rate: 3891.1 KB/s
Software Compression: None
VSS: yes
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
My Bacula DIR/SD is a CentOS 5.4 box, old 32-bit piece of junk, a lower
speed hw than the workstation described above. As a reference, below is a
sample of backup from a linux box (64-bit CentOS), it's of the same class
with rates when backing up the SD/DIR machine itself -which obviously limits
the rate to 11-12MB/s level. Anyway, the samples above were clearly not
limited by the Bacula server.
Elapsed time: 8 mins 1 sec
Priority: 10
FD Files Written: 7
SD Files Written: 7
FD Bytes Written: 5,311,971,015 (5.311 GB)
SD Bytes Written: 5,311,971,759 (5.311 GB)
Rate: 11043.6 KB/s
Software Compression: None
VSS: no
Encryption: no
Accurate: no
So, what's that tough with my Windows clients?
--
TiN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
|