Thanks for all the responses. This has led me to a partial answer.
John's suggested tests yielded surprisingly high numbers. One thing
led to another, and I finally found that turning off compression
increased most clients' performance by a factor of 10. I must have
done something wrong when I tes
Hi !
(private) HKS wrote:
> It seems more and more likely to me that this is a Bacula-specific
> issue. What else can I dig into to try to resolve this?
Can you check how many queries per second you get on the database while
backing up ?
Spooling makes no difference i take it ?
Does attribute sp
> I know this is turning into a long-running monologue, but this
> performance issues is the last thing standing between me and a Backup
> Exec-free environment, so it's important to me.
>
> I believe I've eliminated the disks as the performance bottleneck.
> Through various tuning knobs (sector si
cula-users
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Finding performance issues
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve P
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve Polyack wrote:
(private) HKS wrote:
>
> My server's network performance
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve Polyack wrote:
>>> (private) HKS wrote:
My server's network performance seems all right. Testing basic TCP
throughput with iperf,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, (private) HKS wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve Polyack wrote:
>> (private) HKS wrote:
>>>
>>> My server's network performance seems all right. Testing basic TCP
>>> throughput with iperf, I'm showing an average of 880Mbps or so. FTP
>>> downloads to
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Steve Polyack wrote:
> (private) HKS wrote:
>>
>> My server's network performance seems all right. Testing basic TCP
>> throughput with iperf, I'm showing an average of 880Mbps or so. FTP
>> downloads to this server hum along at about 85MB/s.
>>
>>
>
> You may want
(private) HKS wrote:
> My server's network performance seems all right. Testing basic TCP
> throughput with iperf, I'm showing an average of 880Mbps or so. FTP
> downloads to this server hum along at about 85MB/s.
>
>
You may want to expirement with the "Maximum Network Buffer Size"
parameter w
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Steve Polyack wrote:
> (private) HKS wrote:
>>
>> I moved the catalog to a different server entirely, and the speeds
>> have not improved. What else can I dig into?
>>
>> -HKS
>>
>
> Test your raw network performance between your clients and your storage
> daemon.
(private) HKS wrote:
> I moved the catalog to a different server entirely, and the speeds
> have not improved. What else can I dig into?
>
> -HKS
>
Test your raw network performance between your clients and your storage
daemon. Then test your network performance between clients and storage
da
> I moved the catalog to a different server entirely, and the speeds
> have not improved. What else can I dig into?
>
Sorry. There are many different factors that can effect performance.
You are talking about full backups correct?
Also I would search the archives. This topic comes up every month
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>> John Drescher wrote:
>>> You should never have the database on the same raid array as the
>>> storage. If you have to put it on a different computer.
>>>
>
> That is fine. The problem with having it on the same array is that the
> database
> John Drescher wrote:
>> You should never have the database on the same raid array as the
>> storage. If you have to put it on a different computer.
>>
That is fine. The problem with having it on the same array is that the
database will write often and in small chunks. If this is on the same
arra
Since I have similar setup - Is it OK to have database on the same
server but different array?
Thanks
Vladimir
John Drescher wrote:
> You should never have the database on the same raid array as the
> storage. If you have to put it on a different computer.
>
> John
--
>> Where is the Bacula database storage? Is it on the same RAID array that you
>> are writing backup volumes to?
>
> Yes. If it makes a difference, performance is virtually identical
> between my oldest backup server (database about 2.5GB) and a fresh
> install.
>
You should never have the databas
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Josh Fisher wrote:
> (private) HKS wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm relatively new to Bacula, but so far have been very impressed with
>> it. Right now, I'm backing up three separate data centers to Dell
>> 2950s with 3TB SATA RAID 5 disk arrays. I'm running Bacula 2
(private) HKS wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm relatively new to Bacula, but so far have been very impressed with
> it. Right now, I'm backing up three separate data centers to Dell
> 2950s with 3TB SATA RAID 5 disk arrays. I'm running Bacula 2.2.8 on
> OpenBSD 4.4 with Postgresql 8.3.3.
>
> The only troub
Hi all,
I'm relatively new to Bacula, but so far have been very impressed with
it. Right now, I'm backing up three separate data centers to Dell
2950s with 3TB SATA RAID 5 disk arrays. I'm running Bacula 2.2.8 on
OpenBSD 4.4 with Postgresql 8.3.3.
The only trouble I'm having is terrifically bad p
19 matches
Mail list logo
