On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, (private) HKS <hks.priv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, (private) HKS <hks.priv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, (private) HKS <hks.priv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve Polyack <kor...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> (private) HKS wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My server's network performance seems all right. Testing basic TCP >>>>> throughput with iperf, I'm showing an average of 880Mbps or so. FTP >>>>> downloads to this server hum along at about 85MB/s. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You may want to expirement with the "Maximum Network Buffer Size" parameter >>>> which is available in both the file-daemon and storage-daemon configuration >>>> files. As far as the documentation explains, the SD's default is 32768 >>>> bytes >>>> while the FD default is 65536 bytes. I'm not sure what the reason is for >>>> the difference, but I would try setting them both to either 32768 or 65536. >>>> Perhaps try larger values, but stay under the limits of your OS's TCP >>>> send/recv buffers (256k s/r on FreeBSD 7). >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the recommendation. I've changed this around a bit, but >>> haven't seen any change. I also haven't been able to replicate this >>> poor performance through any other method of writing to disk, >>> transferring across the network, or some combination of the two. I'm >>> certainly open to doing tests on this if only I knew what to do. >>> >>> -HKS >>> >> >> >> I have discovered (what appears to be) a bug in OpenBSD's bnx(4) >> driver that limits tx performance. >> >> I don't *think* it's related to this problem: rx traffic performs >> beautifully and the threshold (109Mb/s) is far above what I'm getting >> with Bacula. I mention it in the interest of full disclosure. >> >> -HKS >> > > > I rebuilt one of my servers on FreeBSD 7.1 which is unaffected by this > bug and the performance issue persists. This pretty much eliminates > the OS as a problem here, so I guess we're looking at a hardware > oddity, some tuning knobs that need adjustment, or some combination of > the two. > > -HKS >
I know this is turning into a long-running monologue, but this performance issues is the last thing standing between me and a Backup Exec-free environment, so it's important to me. I believe I've eliminated the disks as the performance bottleneck. Through various tuning knobs (sector size, softdeps, stripe size), I've doubled my disk throughput on a simple dd test, but bacula performance has remained unchanged. This was also true of multiple RAID configurations. It seems more and more likely to me that this is a Bacula-specific issue. What else can I dig into to try to resolve this? -HKS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
