Never mind. Just reread your previous email, and realized you said that bacula was 20-25x slower than rsync. So definitely look at the DB tunings, especially if your DB is very large.
Lloyd Brown Systems Administrator Fulton Supercomputing Lab Brigham Young University http://marylou.byu.edu On 05/22/2015 09:26 AM, Lloyd Brown wrote: > Not an expert, but it seems like you need to determine whether the > problem is with bacula, or something underlying. > > Even if it's just a quick test, I would copy a large file to the > destination, and time it, to figure out if the non-bacula transfer speed > is consistent with the bacula backup jobs or not. > > If both bacula and non-bacula transfers to that destination are > approximately the same speed, then it's probably something underlying. > Possibly the USB bus, or the drives themselves. Possibly even the > drive's underlying filesystem and FS tuning parameters (if any). > > If the two transfer speeds are inconsistent (most likely much faster for > the non-bacula copy, than the bacula job), then I would look at bacula > tuning. Like Heitor, I'd recommend looking at the database first. I > know that we saw a massive speedup when I moved our bacula db tables > from MyISAM tables to InnoDB tables, and massively increased how much of > the table that the MySQL daemon kept in RAM. It was pretty dramatic. > But then again, we have a very large database, so I'm not sure how > applicable this will be for you. > > Lloyd Brown > Systems Administrator > Fulton Supercomputing Lab > Brigham Young University > http://marylou.byu.edu > > On 05/22/2015 03:28 AM, Charles Tassell wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'm using external USB drives setup with the vchanger system to >> simulate a tape library, and I've got a problem where the backups are >> running horrendously slow. IE, the full backup of my small server >> (5.5GB) takes 8 hours and 10 minutes, and the backup of my 690GB file >> server takes 5-6 DAYS. The problem doesn't seem to be the USB drives >> themselves as I can push 3GB/minute to them easily which means the 690GB >> backup should take under 6 hours. >> >> Does anyone know what could be going on here? Right now the Bacula >> director and storage-director are running on the file server as I >> thought that would be faster, but maybe that's a bad idea? There doesn't >> seem to be a big load issue, at least not enough of one to make the >> backups take 20-25x longer than with rsync... >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud >> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications >> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights >> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. >> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >> _______________________________________________ >> Bacula-users mailing list >> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
