[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
So, you have all this stuff on another server (doesn't appear to be described) and is being mounted via NFS which is then backed up. Just for kicks, try simply using tar to glom that share onto tape and see what rate you get. I'm just wondering if perhaps it might be NFS performance that is killing your rate. But you generally want to isolate components for comparison. This would cut Bacula out of the loop and thus eliminate it as a cause for the slow rates. Someone else will undoubtedly have some other ideas. Just a few comments about NFS. It has a reputation for being touchy. It can be set up as over UDP or over TCP. If it is over UDP, even just a few errors can cause it's performance to become abysmal. You could look at your error rates. If that is a problem, and you can't put a backup client on your NFS server (say, because it is a NAS), then you might actually get better performance by using a samba connection, simply because samba will be over TCP. I'd still be inclined to set it up with a fast holding disk, because if you fail to drive your tape at a fast enough clip, the tape drive itself may become a speed problem, slowing things down even more. --------------- Chris Hoogendyk - O__ ---- Systems Administrator c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments (*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center ~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------- Erdös 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
