Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-08 Thread Il Neofita
Thank you for the reply cen...@client:/tmp/butta$> bin/iperf -c angel Client connecting to angel, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) [ 3] local 192.168.53.103

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-08 Thread Matija Nalis
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:55:55AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote: > Any Idea? What I should check > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Il Neofita wrote: > > Thank you for all the replies > > The  bottleneck is the network or at lest something in the network > > and yes I have an autoloader LTO4 > > > >

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-08 Thread John Drescher
> Any Idea? What I should check > Put the spool on a different drive than the drive you are backing up. John -- Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs pro

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-08 Thread Il Neofita
Any Idea? What I should check On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Il Neofita wrote: > Thank you for all the replies > The  bottleneck is the network or at lest something in the network > and yes I have an autoloader LTO4 > > If I use NC with a file of 10M I need 8 seconds to transfer > If I use scp

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread Il Neofita
Thank you for all the replies The bottleneck is the network or at lest something in the network and yes I have an autoloader LTO4 If I use NC with a file of 10M I need 8 seconds to transfer If I use scp I need around 2 seconds The same file without compression On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:10 AM,

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread John Drescher
> Yes I am using a tape but should not be the tape > 07-Apr 00:36 angel-sd JobId 1443: Despooling elapsed time = 00:02:34, > Transfer rate = 75.16 M bytes/second > > > this is with a full backup > >  FD Files Written:       2,878,988 >  SD Files Written:       2,878,988 >  FD Bytes Written:       2

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread Matija Nalis
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:41:41AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote: > Hi > I have very poor performance when the agent send the spool to the bacula > server First the obvious question: are the server or client doing anything else while the backup is running? > I currently use a RAID5 SAS 15K, 1GB Etherne

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread Il Neofita
Yes I am using a tape but should not be the tape 07-Apr 00:36 angel-sd JobId 1443: Despooling elapsed time = 00:02:34, Transfer rate = 75.16 M bytes/second this is with a full backup FD Files Written: 2,878,988 SD Files Written: 2,878,988 FD Bytes Written: 248,635,057,283

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread John Drescher
> I have very poor performance when the agent send the spool to the bacula > server > > I currently use a RAID5 SAS 15K, 1GB Ethernet > > >    hdparm -t /dev/sda2 > > > /dev/sda2: >  Timing buffered disk reads:  692 MB in  3.00 seconds = 230.41 MB/sec > > > Any idea what I can check? > > 07-Apr 00:

Re: [Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread Simone Martina
> -- Messaggio originale --- > Storage:"LTO4Driver" (From Job resource) > [...] > Rate: 6816.5 KB/s Aren't you using a TAPE to store your backup? IMHO, probably the speed is bottlenecked by the TAPE trasmission rate. Simone -

[Bacula-users] Poor Performance

2010-04-07 Thread Il Neofita
Hi I have very poor performance when the agent send the spool to the bacula server I currently use a RAID5 SAS 15K, 1GB Ethernet hdparm -t /dev/sda2 /dev/sda2: Timing buffered disk reads: 692 MB in 3.00 seconds = 230.41 MB/sec Any idea what I can check? 07-Apr 00:08 angel-dir JobId 1