On Jan 20, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> On Thu, January 20, 2011 12:28 pm, Silver Salonen wrote:
>> On Thursday 20 January 2011 19:02:33 Paul Mather wrote:
>>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>>>
>> This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use soft
On Thu, January 20, 2011 12:28 pm, Silver Salonen wrote:
> On Thursday 20 January 2011 19:02:33 Paul Mather wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>>
>> >>> This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use software
>> >>> compression and use a tape drive with HW compre
2011/1/20 Paul Mather :
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>
This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use software
compression and use a tape drive with HW compression like LTO drives.
John
>>> Not really an option for file/disk devices though.
>>>
>
On Thursday 20 January 2011 19:02:33 Paul Mather wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>
> >>> This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use software
> >>> compression and use a tape drive with HW compression like LTO drives.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >> Not really an opt
On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>>> This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use software
>>> compression and use a tape drive with HW compression like LTO drives.
>>>
>>> John
>> Not really an option for file/disk devices though.
>>
>> I've been tempted to experime
On 01/20/2011 10:01 AM, John Drescher wrote:
>> I've been tempted to experiment with BTRFS using LZO or standard zlib
>> compression for storing the volumes and see how the performance compares
>> to having bacula-fd do the compression before sending - I have a
>> suspicion the former might be bett
>> This is normal. If you want fast compression do not use software
>> compression and use a tape drive with HW compression like LTO drives.
>>
>> John
> Not really an option for file/disk devices though.
>
> I've been tempted to experiment with BTRFS using LZO or standard zlib
> compression for st
> I am running bacula 5.0.3 on CentOS 5.6.
>
> When I run a simple Job I can have rates between 20 or 40 MB/s over a
> Gigabyte network but when I am running this job with client encryption
> and compression everything become slow below 5 MB/s and sometimes
> under 500 KB/s.
> Generally I test with
Hi,
I am running bacula 5.0.3 on CentOS 5.6.
When I run a simple Job I can have rates between 20 or 40 MB/s over a
Gigabyte network but when I am running this job with client encryption
and compression everything become slow below 5 MB/s and sometimes
under 500 KB/s.
Generally I test with a backu
