On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:37:32 +0200, Tim Gustafson <tjg AT soe.ucsc DOT edu> 
wrote:

> However, we're getting pretty pitiful throughput numbers.  When I scp a  
> file from my workstation to the Bacula server, I get something like  
> 40MB/s (320Mb/s).  When Bacula runs, we're lucky to get 20MB/s  
> (160Mb/s), and we often get numbers closer to 10MB/s (80Mb/s).

Are you scp-ing one large file to establish base speed? Your average  
server's filesystem seldom allows 40 MB/s sustained because it often  
consists of many thousands of small and often fragmented files. Over time  
W2k3 suffers most from this, a defrag run or two will often yield the  
biggest speed increase of them all. Linux with ext3 is much more robust in  
this respect, although some new W2k8 servers are doing pretty well here so  
far.

As long as you are using something like an average 7200 rpm 2 disk RAID1  
setup speed will also degrade very quickly if a few other read/write  
actions are taking place at the same time simply due to seeking. The only  
solution for that is to move the main bottlenecks to memory and/or use  
SSDs. For ext3/4 you might also want to try the noatime mount option in  
/etc/fstab.

Lastly, if you depend on every server doing high speeds it will be an  
expensive exercise, you should concentrate on saturating the backup  
storage by running more than one job at the same time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1,  ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and  rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users