On 04/10/10, Tim Gustafson (t...@soe.ucsc.edu) wrote: > ...we're getting pretty pitiful throughput numbers. When I scp a file > from my workstation to the Bacula server, I get something like 40MB/s > (320Mb/s). When Bacula runs, we're lucky to get 20MB/s (160Mb/s), and > we often get numbers closer to 10MB/s (80Mb/s).
As others have mentioned, the key is to try and work out where the contention is. It may be useful to run iftop on the network interfaces of the Bacula server to see what the network IO is like, and then compare that to iotop to see what the disk IO is like. Bear in mind that if you are using spooling (although I assume you aren't), the fd-client status throughput stats reported are half of the actual native speed. This is because the throughput calculation is based on the speed from client to destination, so the time taken is the sum of the network transfer from the client to the spool, and then from the spool to the tape. That, anyhow, might be a reason for the roughly 50% factor you report. If disk IO is the issue it might be useful to verify that your database (what sort?) is running on a separate disk array, that your raid controller has caching enabled (you need a BBU for this to be safe) and that you have a good filesystem for your backup needs (the best one for us is XFS). Rory -- Rory Campbell-Lange r...@campbell-lange.net Campbell-Lange Workshop www.campbell-lange.net 0207 6311 555 3 Tottenham Street London W1T 2AF Registered in England No. 04551928 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
