Hi,

On Tue, 11 May 2010, martinofmoscow wrote:

> I kicked off a [400Gb, full] bacup at 1am on Saturday and it completed 11
> hours later at mid-day.

At the risk of getting the sums wrong and looking silly:

  400GB in 11 hours 
~  36GB per hour
~ 600MB per minute
~  10MB per second
~  82Mbit/sec

There's some rough approximation there but it seems like you're not far
from saturating that 100Mb link for the full 11 hours.

Your bacula reports should include a transfer speed.  What speed is
reported (it's usually in Mbyte/sec)?  Do you have a record of how long
Amanda took?

> Interestingly, I just noticed that the Bacula dir was able to reel off a
> backup of the fd on localhost of about 750Mb in under 10 seconds, 

That's about 8MB per second which is a little slower than what you see
above.  The fd might not be able to write the data as quickly.

> Conversely, a differential of 6Mb from a client on the local LAN just
> took a few minutes to complete.

That's slow in terms of network bitrate, but with a differential or
incremental backup, the bottleneck is usually in the time to find what
files need to be transferred, not in the time to transfer the files.

> Another possibility is spooling. I've set up a spool directory on the
> director/sd but have never seen it used. Relatedly, the tape drive during
> backups is very stop/start, with a lot of pauses.

I'd say without an upgrade to GigE, you're not likely to massively improve
the rate you have.  It's unclear at the moment if the bottleneck is the
network or 

Gavin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users