An update, since a few people asked for something.
I need to backtrack on my original statement that removing compression didn't
make a difference, I must have forgotten to restart the director after making
the change.
In fact switching from GZIP to LZO had the greatest performance gain, even
I think the sqlite backend and the large number of small files are
most likely slowing you down. Isn't sqlite explicitly *not*
recommended for production use in the bacula docs?
Also, using compression won't help with raw backup speed unless you
switch to LZO which enables near disk-speed reads wh
I would really like to know how much speed gain you get when you switch
to Mysql or Postgres, please
post it here, thanks.
On 6/21/2016 1:36 PM, fgd9329g wrote:
> This might be a dumb question, but I can't figure it out.
>
> Debian 8
> Bacula Version: 5.2.6
> sqlite3 -version 3.8.7.1
> Backing
Hello, have you tried to change the bacula database for MySQL or Postgres?
Best regards
Wanderlei Hüttel
Enviado de Motorola Moto X2
Em 21 de jun de 2016 11:21 PM, "fgd9329g"
escreveu:
> This might be a dumb question, but I can't figure it out.
>
> Debian 8
> Bacula Version: 5.2.6
> sqlite3 -ve
This might be a dumb question, but I can't figure it out.
Debian 8
Bacula Version: 5.2.6
sqlite3 -version 3.8.7.1
Backing up to disks, not tape.
I have two bacula systems, both have this same slowness issue. Here's what the
final output of our largest job looks like:
Elapsed time: 4
