On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 11:54 +0200, Radosław Korzeniewski wrote:
> 2010/6/20 Lukas Kolbe
> Hi!
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We use a Tandberg autochanger with two IBM Ultrium LTO-4
> drives behind a
> 24-disk RAID50. When used with with testdata and dd or tar (in
>
2010/6/20 Lukas Kolbe
> Hi!
>
>
Hi,
> We use a Tandberg autochanger with two IBM Ultrium LTO-4 drives behind a
> 24-disk RAID50. When used with with testdata and dd or tar (in dd's case
> with bs=1M), both drives get acceptable rates of around 170MiB per
> second. However, when used with bacula
Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> I have no idea why bacula-sd consumes so much cpu-time and obviously
> limits the throughput here.
Are you using encryption or software compression? My tests with
encryption resulted in a severe slowdown and single core saturation.
Regards,
Richard
---
Am Montag, den 21.06.2010, 09:30 +1200 schrieb richard:
> Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> :
> >
> > I suppose it has something todo with the tapes' maximum blocksize being
> > higher than what Linux supports.
>
> I have the following in my sd with LTO4 attached and it runs at full
> speed from a drect attac
Lukas Kolbe wrote:
:
>
> I suppose it has something todo with the tapes' maximum blocksize being
> higher than what Linux supports.
I have the following in my sd with LTO4 attached and it runs at full
speed from a drect attached RAID5
Maximum block size = 262144
Maximum Network Buffer Size = 655
Hi!
We use a Tandberg autochanger with two IBM Ultrium LTO-4 drives behind a
24-disk RAID50. When used with with testdata and dd or tar (in dd's case
with bs=1M), both drives get acceptable rates of around 170MiB per
second. However, when used with bacula for a copy job (Our default pool
is the di
