> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Paul Van Wambeke [mailto:paul.vanwambeke AT br.fgov DOT be]
> Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 13:38
> An: bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net; James Harper
> Betreff: Re: [Bacula-users] bacula 5.2.10 on Windows 2008 R2 server : 1
> MByte/sec transfer rate, very slow
> 
> 
> On 6/09/2012 12:02, Paul Van Wambeke wrote:
> > On 5/09/2012 11:21, James Harper wrote:
> >>> Using iperf I measured following performances :
> >>>
> >>> bacula-fd = the windows server 2008 R2 host, 1Gb/sec NIC bacula-dir
> >>> = a linux ubuntu 10.04 PC, 1 100Mb/sec NIC bacula-sd = a linux
> >>> ubuntu 10.04 server, 1 Gbite/sec NIC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> iperf server            iperf client                Performance
> >>> ----------------            --------------- --------------------
> >>>
> >>> bacula-fd                bacula-dir                10 MBytes/sec
> >>> bacula-fd                bacula-sd                111 MBytes/sec
> >>> bacula-dir                bacula-fd                10 MBytes/sec
> >>> bacula-sd                bacula-fd                 26 MBytes/sec
> >>>
> >>> So normally the bacula client should be able to write to the bacula
> >>> storage at 26MBytes/sec ?
> >>>
> >>> Any suggestions ?
> >>>
> >> Any crappy computer made in the last 5 years should be able to saturate
> a gigabit link using iperf. The fact that you are only getting
> 26Mbytes/second fd->sd is a bit worrying... it's well above the
> 1Mbit/second that bacula appears to be limited to but it's still an
> indication of a major problem. I haven't had that much experience with
> Hyper-V for performance testing but it should be able to approach Xen
> which easily gets gigabit speeds for Windows VMs. Is your switch up to the
> job?
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Aucun virus trouve dans ce message.
> >> Analyse effectuee par AVG - www.avg.fr
> >> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Base de donnees virale: 2437/5249 - Date:
> >> 04/09/2012
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >       Probably we could fine tune the switches, but I still believe
> > the main problem resided on the interaction between the bacula-fd and
> > the host server's network config ...
> >
> >        We have decided to re-install the windows server, this time
> > without enabling the hyper-v role ... will try again and let you know
> > if this changes something.
> >
> >       Kind regards
> >
> >       Paul
> >
> Well, we re-installed the windows servers without hyper-V or any other
> role : no change in transfer rate.
> 
> A Windows 7 laptop running bacula-fd 5.2.9 transfers at 35MBytes/sec ...
> 
> So it seems to be linked to the fact that the server is a W 2008 R2 server
> ...
> 
> Am I the only one having this problem, anybody succeeded in backup-up a
> W2008 R2 server with Bacula at correct transfer speeds ?
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Paul

Hi Paul,

I'm backing up a lot of 2008 R2 Servers without speed issues. I've seen cases 
where a faulty nic driver caused such problems. Have you monitored the network 
interface and watched what happens (with wireshark for example)?
I did not follow this thread - so this might have been suggested: Compression 
on the fileset may cause slow transfer rates

Kind regards

Julian 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users