Hi,
Sorry to warm up this slightly old discussion, but since I'm suffering
from a similar problem, I just stumpled upon this thread while
searching for a solution.
In my setting, it's a disk-to-disk-to-tape setup, I'm writing the data
from my clients to a RAID-6 storage (15 x 1,5TB storage system
Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 11:27 -0400 schrieb John Drescher:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 11:06 +0100 schrieb Alan Brown:
> >> On 21/06/10 10:56, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For comparison, I dd'ed a volume to /dev/null while the copy j
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 11:06 +0100 schrieb Alan Brown:
>> On 21/06/10 10:56, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
>> >
>> > For comparison, I dd'ed a volume to /dev/null while the copy job was
>> > running:
>> > [r...@shepherd ~]# dd if=/var/bacula/dp/fs1/Vo
Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 11:06 +0100 schrieb Alan Brown:
> On 21/06/10 10:56, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> > For comparison, I dd'ed a volume to /dev/null while the copy job was
> > running:
> > [r...@shepherd ~]# dd if=/var/bacula/dp/fs1/Vol0070 of=/dev/null bs=1M
> > 917504 bytes (9.2 GB) copie
On 21/06/10 10:56, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
>
> For comparison, I dd'ed a volume to /dev/null while the copy job was
> running:
> [r...@shepherd ~]# dd if=/var/bacula/dp/fs1/Vol0070 of=/dev/null bs=1M
> 917504 bytes (9.2 GB) copied, 12.0225 seconds, 763 MB/s
>
> But dd'ing it to another file reveals
Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 01:20 +0200 schrieb Lukas Kolbe:
> Thanks for the hints. Changing the block sizes to the ones you mentioned
> doesn't help unfortunatly.
>
> Maybe it is a completely different problem: The backups are made to the
> diskpool in parallel, from a few different clients. The
