On Saturday 09 July 2005 12:00, Nicolas Stein wrote: > Hi, > > I'm running Bacula 1.36.3, in a mutli-OS environment. > > - The director is running on a Fedora Core 2 Machine. > > - The Storage daemon is on the same machine, and stores to HD files, > in different directories (different "storage" and "Pool") > of a 1.1T software RAID5 volume (/dev/md0). > The volume is made of 5 SATA drives of 300G each. > > - I have a client on a Win2k server with about 160G of data, > and another one on an Xserve (OSx) machine with about 300G of data, > plus two other servers with smaller capacities. > > All three machines are connected on a dedicated 1Gbps network, thus > carrying no other traffic than bacula's. > > I tried to backup sequentially the two machines, and the rate was > about 6.3MB/sec for the win2k, and about 6.5MB/sec for the OSx > machine. It took thus +/- 7 hours to full-backup the win2k server, > and then +/-13.5 hours to full-backup the OSx server, thus a total of > 20.5 hours > > Then I made the two jobs concurrent, and the rates dropped to 2.3MB/s > for the win2k, and 3.6MB/sec for the OSx. > It took then +/- 19 hours to full-backup the win2k server, and at the > same time +/-23.5 hours to full-backup the OSx server. > > Does anybody have an idea on why thes rates a so bad when running > concurrent ?
Are you using compression and/or checksumming in your FileSet? > It thus seems the total bandwidth tops around 6MB/s... (2.3MB/s + > 3.6MB/s) - A 1Gbps network should max at 100MBytes / s, even with a > lot of network / software overhead , it is still much higher no ? > - A Sata drive is 150MB/s, not counting the RAID, again, even with > all software losses, it is still much higher... Find me a SATA drive which does 150MB/s and I'll eat my shoes. A good SATA drive will get between 55~60MB/s. Bacula isn't just copying data over the network, so it would not achieve 150MB/s even if SATA discs could do it. Explaining all the things which Bacula must do in between is out of my range of expertise - but it is a significant overhead which you can't disregard. > I have separate "storage" ressources, pointing to different "device" > ressources, with different "pools". > > Shall I use different Storage Daemons to increase this bandwidth ? > What if they are on the same machine ? Use one system for your catalogue, one or more systems for your storage and one system for your director, as well as each client, of course. In my experience a collection of medium power machines, good storage, and a fast DB server works better than a single very powerful machine. > Any suggestions / advices / experiences would be very appreciated ! > > PS: Besides this small performance/ tuning issue, I'd like to point > out Bacula is really powerfull, very versatile and open. > It competes without problems with big commercial solutions (actually > I switched from one of them to Bacula, simply because I wanted good > multi-OS support). Keep on going guys, this is good soft !! > > Nicolas. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar > happening July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the > latest in dual core and dual graphics technology at this free one > hour event hosted by HP, AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit > http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users HTH, -- Dominic Marks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP, AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
