Hi Kamil,
2 days ago I had got the same problem like you.
Open client config file for windows and put "Maximum Network Buffer Size =
65536" in FileDaemon :)
It will resolve the problem
Mariusz.
+--
|This was sent by mariusz
Hello
After enabling TLS, I've noticed significant performance drawback.
I've made some tests for both Linux (Fedora 13) and Windows XP clients. I've
used
250MB tar archive. One file. No compression.
BACKUP:
Windows TLS 850 kB/s
Windows NO_TLS 8500 kB/s
Linux T
cula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Bacula-users] performance problem
I currently have 3 clients doing a full backup (simultaneously). According
to "status client" one is getting 300kb/s (this one is my director and
storage server machine), one is getting 225kb/s, and one is
I currently have 3 clients doing a full backup (simultaneously). According
to "status client" one is getting 300kb/s (this one is my director and
storage server machine), one is getting 225kb/s, and one is getting 50kb/s.
I've disabled AV on access scanning for the bacula-fd.exe process. I have
sof
On 23/09/10 15:26, Andrés Yacopino wrote:
> I think i am getting worst performance because of ramdon disk access
> speed, is that true?
>
Yes. If you use the time command on your tar process you will find it is
similarly slow.
Actually it's not so much random disk access speed as the fixed tim
> I need to improve performance of a Job which backups 150 files (mail
> and File Server).
> I was compressing the files on disk in some tgz files first (tar and
> gzip) ,then backuping then on tape with Bacula, i was getting about:
>
> Job write elapsed time = 00:32:16, Transfer rate = 44.93 M
I need to improve performance of a Job which backups 150 files (mail
and File Server).
I was compressing the files on disk in some tgz files first (tar and
gzip) ,then backuping then on tape with Bacula, i was getting about:
Job write elapsed time = 00:32:16, Transfer rate = 44.93 M Bytes/seco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Rainer Hackel wrote:
> I have bacula running (version 2.0.2) and in principle everything works =
> fine.
I feel obliged to warn you about that version:
http://www.bacula.org/downloads/bug-395.txt
You should upgrade to 2.2.4 as soon as possi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Drescher wrote:
>> I have bacula running (version 2.0.2) and in principle everything works =
>> fine.
>> But now (reading some mails from the list) I ask myself why the =
>> backup-speed
>> is that slow. In average it's about 1500 kb/s.
We are
In response to "Rainer Hackel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi all!
>
> I have bacula running (version 2.0.2) and in principle everything works =
> fine. But now (reading some mails from the list) I ask myself why the =
> backup-speed is that slow. In average it's about 1500 kb/s.
>
> The software i
> I have bacula running (version 2.0.2) and in principle everything works =
> fine. But now (reading some mails from the list) I ask myself why the =
> backup-speed is that slow. In average it's about 1500 kb/s.
>
Is this an incremental or Differential backup?
John
-
Hi all!
I have bacula running (version 2.0.2) and in principle everything works = fine.
But now (reading some mails from the list) I ask myself why the = backup-speed
is that slow. In average it's about 1500 kb/s.
The software is running on fedora. The Computer has a fast CPU and 2GB = of
RAM.
Hi,
I installed bacula 1.36.3 to backup two Linux server and one Windows 2K
server. It seems to work, almost: the backup from the windows machine
ist very slow.
The backup of the Linux servers runs with about 800 kBytes/s (DDS-3
tapes), but the Windows server just returns about 100 kB/s, whi
On Wednesday 13 July 2005 12:14, Jonas Björklund wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Carsten Schurig wrote:
> > The backup of the Linux servers runs with about 800 kBytes/s
> > (DDS-3 tapes), but the Windows server just returns about 100 kB/s,
> > which is much too slow to backup 15 GB!
>
>
Hello,
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Carsten Schurig wrote:
> The backup of the Linux servers runs with about 800 kBytes/s (DDS-3
> tapes), but the Windows server just returns about 100 kB/s, which is
> much too slow to backup 15 GB!
Have you tried spooling?
http://www.bacula.org/rel-manual/Data_Spoo
Hi,
I installed bacula 1.36.3 to backup two Linux server and one Windows 2K
server. It seems to work, almost: the backup from the windows machine
ist very slow.
The backup of the Linux servers runs with about 800 kBytes/s (DDS-3
tapes), but the Windows server just returns about 100 kB/s, which i
16 matches
Mail list logo
