On 8/9/2010 4:23 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > On 04/08/10, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote: >> On 03/08/10, Dan Langille (d...@langille.org) wrote: >>> On 8/3/2010 7:09 PM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: >> >>>> Yes, a batch insert is faster than a specfic insert, but the latter >>>> should be done at the "written-to-tape" transaction time, and could be >>>> done asynchronously, but in a transaction. >>> >>> So... don't use batch-insert. Go the single insert approach. I dare >>> you. ;) >> >> Yes, I'm trying! I'm trying to do it properly by recompiling debian >> stable backports and I'm running into library dependancy problems. > > Done. I've recompiled with batch inserts set to off. > > I tested spooling to see how this would work although it isn't strictly > necessary for my situation (a single server with AoE and internal > storage and a locally attached tape drive). The backup started running > off disk at around 100MB/s and then spooling at around 100MB/s. The disk > copy slowed down dramatically over the weekend due to contention due to > some external MD5 audits and rsync processes.
Well, spooling data to disk first makes sense if your network cannot keep up with your tape drive. You want to avoid start/stop on the tape. Spooling attributes is different. You may want to try that on and then off to see how things go. Off is what we wanted to avoid I think. > > I'm now going to play with non-spooled backups and some options such as > noatime. > > Build OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu debian 5.0.5 > JobId: 1 > Job: HAbkp.2010-08-06_15.46.23_03 > Backup Level: Full > Client: "clwbackup-fd" 5.0.2 (28Apr10) > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,debian,5.0.5 > FileSet: "HAfileset" 2010-08-06 15:46:23 > Pool: "HAPool" (From Job resource) > Catalog: "MyCatalog" (From Client resource) > Storage: "CLW_LTO4" (From Job resource) > Scheduled time: 06-Aug-2010 15:46:07 > Start time: 06-Aug-2010 15:46:25 > End time: 09-Aug-2010 18:23:16 > Elapsed time: 3 days 2 hours 36 mins 51 secs > Priority: 10 > FD Files Written: 7,706,717 > SD Files Written: 7,706,717 > FD Bytes Written: 7,337,839,018,613 (7.337 TB) > SD Bytes Written: 7,339,475,824,330 (7.339 TB) > Rate: 27317.7 KB/s > Software Compression: None > VSS: no > Encryption: no > Accurate: no > Volume name(s): HA-01|HA-02|HA-03|HA-04|HA-05|HA-06|HA-07 > Volume Session Id: 1 > Volume Session Time: 1281090914 > Last Volume Bytes: 896,114,386,944 (896.1 GB) > Non-fatal FD errors: 0 > SD Errors: 0 > FD termination status: OK > SD termination status: OK > Termination: Backup OK > > -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
