Thanks Gavin, that's very defly surmised! I guess we were misunderstanding
what Amanda was/wasn't doing previously.


Gavin McCullagh-2 wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 

Just have, exactly the same, with the significant difference that Amanda was
performing compression on the client. I'm amazed that this is something I'd
overlooked (and possible overestimated the performance of our network.)

Anyone have any experience with using compression on the client with Bacula?



Gavin McCullagh-2 wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 

Although I'm not sure I agree with this! More like 80Mb per second. More
like what I'd expect.

Anyway, very well made point, perhaps I'll push for a new Gig switch between
servers!


Many thanks.


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Bacula-slow%2C-possibly-network-tp28521328p28523164.html
Sent from the Bacula - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

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