"Hayden Katzenellenbogen" <hay...@nextlevelinternet.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:88bc6885d33a9d42a1ccb45e8749525ed15...@pigeon.sandiego.nextlevelinternet.com... > Everyone, > > I currently have a single server with 2.5TB of local data that I need to > back up. The problem I am running into is that the server only has a > 100Mb/s network card so I am limited to 12MB/s of data transfer. I > thought using the loopback interface would give better speed but it > seems that I get identical results. > > Is there a way to have Bacula read directly off the file system (not a > raw partition) instead of relying on a network transfer. >
I think the network card speed is not a problem here, since it's not used for actual data transfer. Just a coincidence you happen to reach 100M/8 rate. > Has anyone had a similar experience with a creative solution. (This > could be something obvious I have missed). > My first guess is that database & filesystem performance could be the bottleneck. Do you have the catalog files on the same physical disk, that you are backing up? And where do you write the data, to the same physical disk, maybe? All that could cause a lot of disk seek activity. Maybe adding memory might speed it up, since the OS could buffer more data. And if you can somehow enable disk write cache too... but it would involve problems if the system ever happens to crash. > > I am currently running Bacula 3.0.3 (upgraded this morning) on Ubuntu > 8.04 LTS. This server is running storage, file and director daemons. > > Thanks > Hayden > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
