Hi, I would like to use bacula for backup, but the observed perfomance is not good enough for our use case. The backup-server running Director, SD and FD (version 1.38.11 on Debian unstable) is an AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1500+ with 1 GB of ram. It reads the files via Gbit-ethernet from an NFS-share. The storage device is an autochanger-library with an HP Ultrium-3 tape drive, which is attached to the server via an Adaptec AIC-7892A U160/m-SCSI-card.
The problem is, that Bacula in a test run gives a rate of upto 18MB/s with a single large file served from NFS. Backing up approx. 7,5 million files with a total size of 920GB brings down the rate to approx. 6MB/s (md5 signatures and no spooling). I can hardly estimate if this is good or bad. Well, I know, that a rate of 6 MB/s is to slow by a factor of 3 to 4 for our goal of backing up 1-1.5TB in less than 20hours. I'm sure, that I should upgrade the hardware to get more performance, but before doing so, I would like to hear from others, what hardware they use for backup, how their setup is and which backup rates they achieve. Bye, Sven "Jetzt Handykosten senken mit klarmobil - 14 Ct./Min.! Hier klicken" http://www.klarmobil.de/index.html?pid=73025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
