On 1/20/2020 10:56 AM, Jason Voorhees wrote:
Hello guys:
I'm planning a Bacula deployment on AWS in the following weeks. I have
some doubts about disk performance for Disk based backups.
See
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/disk-performance.html
Based on the idea that Bacula writes data on big files (i.e. 100 GB
each volume), what technical considerations should I have for the
underlying storage device? These are some of my questions I have
around it:
- Does it matter a lot choosing XFS instead of ext4 as filesystem?
XFS
- How can I know the amount of IOPS needed for my local disk?
It depends on several things, like how much data, how long it is
acceptable for the backups to run. It depends greatly on the speed of
the clients being backed up. You can run concurrent jobs, but it also
depends on network speed. For example, if your VPC is on a 1 Gbps
network, then max network throughput, regardless of concurrency, is 125
MB/s.
- What does Bacula need most: high IOPS or throughput (MB/s)?
- Based on the previous question, should I choose SSD over HDD disks?
- Is it worth using RAID1 or RAID10 for improving performance?
I was planning to use HDD disks which offers high throughput (500
MB/s) and up to 500 IOPS per disk (these are "st1" EBS volumes).
By the way, I pretend to use an external DB (Amazon RDS) for my
Catalog, so my Storage daemon wouldn't share the same underlying
storage.
I would not think RAIDing the EBS volumes would be needed. The backing
store for those volumes is already RAID. Also, SSD for the volume files
would be very expensive and not needed unless your VPC is on a 10 Gbps
network and your client VPC instances can exceed the 500 MB/s throughput
of the HDD. It would be better to add a separate smaller SSD virtual
disk to use for the Bacula work directory and for spooling attributes if
using a RDS DB. This would prevent writes to the work directory and
attribute spooling from affecting sequential writes to the volume files.
The volume files are effectively sequential writes, so they really
should be on a separate disk that is not being written to by anything
other than the Bacula SD.
I hope someone can share some ideas about disk performance.
I didn't find enough info about this topic on Internet. Thanks in advance
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
