>>>>> On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:09:18 +0200 (MEST), Peter Eriksson <[EMAIL >>>>> PROTECTED]> said: > > On Wed, 24 May 2006, Dan Trainor wrote: > > > I couldn't help but notice you mentioning that it had taken over two > > whole days to recover 360G of data. Are you kidding? > > Now the 2 days have passed and this time I was able to not make > any mistakes and have started the actual recover process... > > Current estimates indicates that it processes about 1GB per hour... > So it'll take about 11 days to recover the 305GB / 5 million files. > > Even if the incore tree building is very slow due to bad/missing > indexes in the MySQL database I think this part of the recover shouldn't > really be effected by that problem? > > I wonder what the speed limiting factor is this time... > > Server: Sun Ultra 60 with dual 360MHz processors, 2GB RAM > Tape drives: Quantum DLT-7000 tape drives > Robot: Sun StorEdge L-11000 (ATL P3000) > > The restore is running locally on the backup server and writes to a > NFS-mounted file system from another server via Gigabit Ethernet > so that shouldn't be the limiting factor... > > "top" output: > > > last pid: 17097; load averages: 0.16, 0.16, 0.16 > > 16:06:05 > > 42 processes: 41 sleeping, 1 on cpu > > CPU states: 94.6% idle, 1.4% user, 4.0% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap > > Memory: 2048M real, 34M free, 1737M swap in use, 1588M swap free > > > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND > > 11507 root 3 59 0 5800K 2456K sleep 18:09 2.19% bacula-fd > > 11613 daemon 18 59 0 4368K 2256K sleep 1:26 1.37% nfsmapid > > 17097 root 1 59 0 2168K 1680K cpu/2 0:00 1.14% top > > 11509 root 15 59 0 1385M 1050M sleep 110.3H 0.31% bacula-dir > > 11501 root 3 59 0 6640K 2696K sleep 224:59 0.20% bacula-sd > > 572 mysql 11 59 0 309M 289M sleep 250:49 0.11% mysqld > > 16833 root 1 59 0 4112K 2088K sleep 0:18 0.05% sshd > > 16921 root 2 59 0 5424K 2352K sleep 0:11 0.03% bconsole > > > Ah well. I'll just let it trundle along I think and we'll see > how long it takes.
Since nfsmapid is using CPU, could it be some NFS problem? I see really bad nfs performance between NFSv2 and NFSv3 machines sometimes (not Solaris though). __Martin ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
