John Drescher escribió: > On 8/23/07, Angel Mieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files >> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb. >> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the second one >> 25.000 KB/sec?(the backup is to a file on both cases) >> Have bacula less performance with small files? >> >> > Is everything on one single server and on the same harddrive / raid array? > > Yes is everything on one single server on the same raid. > The first thought is that the biggest reason for the difference in > backup rates is that in the case of the small files your > harddrive/array is doing significantly more seeking than in the case > with a few large files and depending on how they are on your media > file readahead cache may be working against you. > Maybe, but I try with two different servers, with different hardware. First one: Xeon 3,2Ghz; 2 hdd on SCSI raid 1. 4Gb RAM. ( Open Ent. Server ) Second one: Pentium 4 2,8Ghz; 1 SATA Disk, 2 Gb RAM. ( Open Ent Server too )
The performance on both cases is similar. So i don't think the problem is on the hardware. > Have you timed the same backups using tar? It should be shorter than > with bacula but does it have a similar ratio? > Yes, i do it, happens the same. :( > John > > __________ Información de NOD32, revisión 2478 (20070823) __________ > > Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus system > http://www.nod32.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
