Hi, On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Bob Hetzel wrote:
> I'm starting to think the issue might be linked to some kernels or linux > distros. I have two bacula servers here. One system is a year and a half > old (12 GB RAM), has with a File table having approx 40 million File > records. That system has had the slowness issue (building the directory > tree on restores took about an hour) running first Ubuntu 9.04 or 9.10 and > now RedHat 6 beta. The kernel currently is at 2.6.32-44.1.el6.x86_64. I > haven't tried downgrading, instead I tweaked the source code to use the old > 3.0.3 query and recompiled--I don't use Base jobs or Accurate backups so > that's safe for me. > > The other system is 4 yrs or so old, with less memory (8GB), slower cpus, > slower hard drives, etc., and in fairness only 35 million File records. > This one builds the directory tree in approx 10 seconds, but is running > Centos 5.5. The kernel currently is at 2.6.18-194.11.3.el5. That's an interesting thought. It would be interesting to make an exact comparison, something like: - run a restore with the slow query log on, capture the query text - run the query manually in mysql - dump the mysql database - restore the mysql database on the older server - run the query there It sounds like your database is quite large so this might be too awkward in practice? Strictly speaking the freshly sequentially written database might have a slight unfair advantage, but if the results are radically different then that would be useful to know. Gavin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Centralized Desktop Delivery: Dell and VMware Reference Architecture Simplifying enterprise desktop deployment and management using Dell EqualLogic storage and VMware View: A highly scalable, end-to-end client virtualization framework. Read more! http://p.sf.net/sfu/dell-eql-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
