>>>>> "BM" == Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BM> In response to "Anders Boström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I did some new performance-tests: >> >> All operations are against a directory-tree with 7,255,659,224 bytes >> data in 98,025 files. >> >> | test1 | test2 | test3 | >> --------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ >> bacula-fd, no compression, md5: | 10:25 | 10:42 | 10:15 | >> bacula-fd, GZIP, md5: | 16:09 | 15:46 | 17:02 | >> tar, local (1): | 8:37 | 8:53 | 8:54 | >> tar + nc (2): | 9:48 | 9:52 | 9:43 | >> tar + gzip + nc (3): | 14:11 | 14:26 | 15:03 | >> --------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+ BM> OK. This indicates to me that bacula is doing a damn good job. Only BM> 15% overhead to add checksumming and cataloging features to backup. BM> If you ask me, that's a hell of a deal. >> (1) time /bin/sh -c "tar cf - directory | cat >/dev/null" >> (2) time /bin/sh -c "tar cf - directory | nc -q 0 backup_server 4711" >> (3) time /bin/sh -c "tar czf - directory | nc -q 0 backup_server 4711" >> >> This round of tests is more in line with what I expected, and the >> bacula performance is quite good. The only major difference compared >> to my previous tests is that the file-server disc-performance is much >> better. It seems like bacula suffers much more than tar from slow >> disc-performance on the file-server. backup-server and network >> performance don't seem to be an issue at all in the tests, even if >> write to TCP is a bit slower than /dev/null. >> >> However, both tar and bacula suffers from quite large slow-down when >> gzip is used. This is on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2-core), running >> >50% idle during backup, leading me to believe that there are room for >> improvement. But part of the problem might be in the linux-kernel >> (2.6.17.8). At least when tar was running, the gzip process seemed to >> move from one CPU-core to the other very frequently. BM> Improvement, maybe, but not for Bacula, as far as I can see. If a BM> dual-core system is running at 50%, then 1 core is maxed out. Since No, this was not the case. Most of the time, both CPU's was idle >30% of the time, according to top. BM> the gzip process is serialized, it can only run on one core at a time, BM> which means the CPU is the limiting factor at this time. gzip on this computer, on one CPU, reach about 18 Mbyte/s. bacula with gzip only reach ~7.7 Mbyte/s. This leads me to believe that there are room for improvement. BM> What was your performance goal anyway? If you actually thought you'd BM> get backup throughput at wire speed on 1g network, that was your first BM> mistake. I don't know of any disks that can feed data that fast. Hell, BM> from your experiment above, those disks can feed data at about 13M/sec, BM> which is closer to 100mb than gig, and that's the absolute fastest BM> you're going to get. No, I don't expect better performance than the disc-performance. In fact, a lot lower than disc-performance is acceptable. The 7.7 Mbyte/s we reach now is OK. However, full backup times are long, but as long as we can run a full backup in less than 48 hours, it's OK. >> I can share one experience with you regarding >> disc-performance: >> >> Both our two Seagate ST3500641AS discs (500Gb Barracuda 7200.9, SATA) >> never completes the SMART extended self-test. It worked fine for ~6 >> months, and now both run forever. The drives report 30% remaining >> of the self-test, then ~2 hours later 10% remaining. After that it >> goes up to 40% remaining and the cycle repeats. Also when running the >> SMART extended self-test, the IO-performance is more than 10 times >> lower than normal (leading to very long backup-time). >> >> We have been in contact with Seagate about this, and have upgraded to >> the latest firmware, without any success. So I guess we will have to >> RMA the discs. BM> Are these the disks you're using to test Bacula? Please tell me you're BM> not using hardware known to be broken as a test bed. When I run the original tests reported on this list (yes on these discs), I didn't know about this problem. And unfortunately, this isn't a test-bed, it is our file-server. / Anders ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
