I always check manager/perfmonance, and when it is in the middle of bacula
job, I noticed bacula-fd.exe process is missing from windows Resource
Monitor > Network and Disk , and bacual-fd.exe cpu usgae 0 but Memory usage
49,744 K .
any thought?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:57 PM Dimitri Maziuk via Bac
On 6/3/19 2:06 PM, ce wrote:
> running multiple jobs for the same client at the same time makes it
> worse...!!!
I use neither encryption nor windows, but this hints at disk i/o. I'm
sure sysinternals have some iostat equivalent, or you maybe you could
try watching it in task manager/perfmon?
--
Does any one else have issue with bacula speed with bacula 9.4.2.
is that normal that bacula speed is too low when encryption is enabled for
windows client and Windows Network IO is around xx kb/s or less with 1 Gbps
bandwidth ???
No cpu and memory issue on the client/server sides though.
P.S.
ru
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:28 AM, rvent wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to Bacula and so far i really like it.
>
> I am testing Bacula and at the moment i am trying to backup to disk.
> Everything seems to be working fine except that the file transfers from the
> client to the server are not very fa
Hello,
I am new to Bacula and so far i really like it.
I am testing Bacula and at the moment i am trying to backup to disk. Everything
seems to be working fine except that the file transfers from the client to the
server are not very fast.
The server's interface is a 2Gbps card, the client's i
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Klaus Troeger wrote:
> LTO-3 drive (equipped with "only" LTO-2 tapes, but )
>
> Physical drive performance is 28sec for 1 Gigabyte, so ~35MB/sec
>
> [r...@denbvsbcks1 disk1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1024
> count=100
> 100+0 records in
> 100+0 records out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
i did a clean setup of bacula on a
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz, 3 GB Memory, Intel raid controller forming
5 internal 72 GB-320/10k SCSI LVD drives to a raid 5 array, where
everything is on.
My Quantum M1500 LTO-3 loader is connected via SCSI 1
Klaus Troeger wrote:
>
> Does it mean, that the spooling to disk was at avarage of 6 MB/sec,
> and the writing to tape
> reached the 35 MB/sec
It does appear that way. Are you using encryption and/or (software)
compression? Both slow down the spooling process, though by how much I
don't know.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
o.k., if my following estimation is true, you are right.
p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }
5-Oct 18:22 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Job write elapsed time = 00:09:13,
Transfer rate = 5.881 M bytes/second
05-Oct 18:22 denbvsbcks1-sd JobId 3: Committin
> Physical drive performance is 28sec for 1 Gigabyte, so ~35MB/sec
>
> [r...@denbvsbcks1 disk1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=swapfile bs=1024
> count=100
> 100+0 records in
> 100+0 records out
> 102400 bytes (1.0 GB) copied, 79.907 s, 12.8 MB/s
I am confused. This looks horribly slow. I wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
i did a clean setup of bacula on a
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.60GHz, 3 GB Memory, Intel raid controller forming
5 internal 72 GB-320/10k SCSI LVD drives to a raid 5 array, where
everything is on.
My Quantum M1500 LTO-3 loader is connected via SCSI 1
Hi all,
I wanted to follow up to a number of threads we've already had about
Bacula performance with LTO-3 and LTO-4 drives.
The lowest-level way to test the drive performance is to use a utility
provided by the drive manufacturer. For IBM drives, there is a utility
called ITDT.
Here are my
Hi,
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
Finally got around to messing around with bacula again...
> The manual says that nnn being the same number for both settings
> means "fixed" blocksize.
>
> As I understand it, your solutions should be to just set the
> "Minimum Block Size" so you get a good perfroman
Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> * Chris Howells schrieb am 10.09.07 um 16:47 Uhr:
>
>> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>>
>>> I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
>>> best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
>>>
* Chris Howells schrieb am 10.09.07 um 16:47 Uhr:
> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> > I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
> > best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
>
> Will do.
>
> Are you basically suggesting
Arno Lehmann wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
> I'd suggest to do some tests with Bacula, and after you found your
> best settings, clearly mark all tapes with their respective block sizes.
Will do.
Are you basically suggesting that I should use the following sd directives:
Minimum Block Size =
Hi,
10.09.2007 16:21,, Chris Howells wrote::
> Hi,
>
> I am currently struggling to get any kind of reasonable performance out
> of Bacula on my LTO 4 tape size. I have done a considerable of testing
> and benchmarking, and my hunch is that bacula's block size of 64512
> bytes is causing the p
Hi,
I am currently struggling to get any kind of reasonable performance out
of Bacula on my LTO 4 tape size. I have done a considerable of testing
and benchmarking, and my hunch is that bacula's block size of 64512
bytes is causing the performance problems.
To test the drive, I used tar, with
Hello,
On 2/12/2007 11:43 AM, Daniel Holtkamp wrote:
> Hi !
>
> My bacula 2.0.1 installation is running quite nicely except for some
> servers. I`ll use only one of these as an example as the others have the
> same problem.
>
> This one server has to backup more than 5 million files that are v
Hello,
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:43, Daniel Holtkamp wrote:
> Hi !
>
> My bacula 2.0.1 installation is running quite nicely except for some
> servers. I`ll use only one of these as an example as the others have the
> same problem.
>
> This one server has to backup more than 5 million files tha
Hi !
My bacula 2.0.1 installation is running quite nicely except for some
servers. I`ll use only one of these as an example as the others have the
same problem.
This one server has to backup more than 5 million files that are very
small (usually less than 2KB). The problem is that the perfor
Hello,
On 1/4/2006 12:12 AM, Joe Dollard wrote:
I've run into a performance problem when doing backups to tape that I
need some help in resolving. According to the output from btape test,
my tape drive can be written to at around 9,700 KB/s. I've also run a
test with the Windows file daemo
I've run into a performance problem when doing backups to tape that I
need some help in resolving. According to the output from btape test,
my tape drive can be written to at around 9,700 KB/s. I've also run a
test with the Windows file daemon and can backup to disk on my bacula
server at a
Hello all,
I finally found a solution to speed up the performance dramatically:
In the FileDaemon resource I set "Maximum Network Buffer Size =
65536" (instead of the default 32k).
Now I get ~3MB/sec, which is reasonable.
Thanks for all assistance,
Uwe
Am 31.08.2005 um 18:28 schrieb Uwe Hee
Hello all,
I finally found a solution to speed up the performance dramatically:
In the FileDaemon resource I set "Maximum Network Buffer Size =
65536" (instead of the default 32k).
Now I get ~3MB/sec, which is reasonable.
Thanks for all assistance,#
Uwe
Am 31.08.2005 um 18:28 schrieb Uwe He
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I use openvpn (http://openvpn.net) in some bacula clients to bacula
server with lzo compression without encrypt, and the transfer time
decrease a lot. I recommend if your data transfer are big.
- --
Jeronimo Zucco
LPIC-1 Linux Professional In
Hello,Am 30.08.2005 um 18:15 schrieb Kern Sibbald:Perhaps you didn't read the ReleaseNotes where I indicate that SQLite3 in my tests was 4 to 10 times slower than SQLite 2. Try SQLite 2 or MySQL.I used sqlite3 mainly because it came preinstalled with MacOS 10.4. Meanwhile I have installed MySQL fo
Hi,
Kern Sibbald wrote:
On Saturday 27 August 2005 18:22, Uwe Hees wrote:
Hello all,
for some time I am playing with bacula to find out if should use it
for personal backups at home and maybe use it in the my company to
backup some Linux servers.
I have tried 1.36 and some 1.37 up to 1.37.3
On Saturday 27 August 2005 18:22, Uwe Hees wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> for some time I am playing with bacula to find out if should use it
> for personal backups at home and maybe use it in the my company to
> backup some Linux servers.
>
> I have tried 1.36 and some 1.37 up to 1.37.37 on my ibook G4 r
Hello all,
for some time I am playing with bacula to find out if should use it
for personal backups at home and maybe use it in the my company to
backup some Linux servers.
I have tried 1.36 and some 1.37 up to 1.37.37 on my ibook G4 running
under MacOS X 10.4.2.
While performing the de
Hello all together.
After setting up bacula successfuly and solving some problems with your help
our backup works fine now. But talking to the director with the bconsole ist
sometimes very slow. for e.g. when askting for the status or when restoring
file, building the filelist takes long long t
31 matches
Mail list logo
