> Maybe, but I try with two different servers, with different hardware.
> First one:
> Xeon 3,2Ghz; 2 hdd on SCSI raid 1. 4Gb RAM. ( Open Ent. Server )
> Second one:
> Pentium 4 2,8Ghz; 1 SATA Disk, 2 Gb RAM. ( Open Ent Server too )
>
> The performance on both cases is similar. So i don't think the
John Drescher escribió:
> On 8/23/07, Angel Mieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files
>> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb.
>> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the sec
On 8/23/07, Angel Mieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files
> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb.
> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the second one
> 25.000 KB/sec?(the backup
> > I suspect it's some database problem. Im using postgresql 7.4.8. Maybe
> > with Sqlite will increase the rates? Must I try with them?
>
> i would doubt sqlite could increase performance except in some very
> weird corner cases...
>
That would in a lot of cases actually decrease performance.
Jo
On 2007.08.24. 11:47, Angel Mieres wrote:
> Diference between SCP and bacula goes from 15 min with bacula and 3 min
> with scp.
> I suspect it's some database problem. Im using postgresql 7.4.8. Maybe
> with Sqlite will increase the rates? Must I try with them?
i would doubt sqlite could increase
Diference between SCP and bacula goes from 15 min with bacula and 3 min
with scp.
I suspect it's some database problem. Im using postgresql 7.4.8. Maybe
with Sqlite will increase the rates? Must I try with them?
MaxxAtWork escribió:
> On 8/23/07, Angel Mieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
On 8/23/07, Angel Mieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files
> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb.
> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the second one
> 25.000 KB/sec?(the backup
Rich escribió:
> On 2007.08.23. 14:51, Angel Mieres wrote:
>
>> I will try to answer all things that you said friends.
>> - I don't use compression method to do a backup.
>> - The database is postgres and during backup isn't taking all CPU or
>> memory, only a 10% CPU. Process like bacula-fd/sd
On 2007.08.23. 14:51, Angel Mieres wrote:
> I will try to answer all things that you said friends.
> - I don't use compression method to do a backup.
> - The database is postgres and during backup isn't taking all CPU or
> memory, only a 10% CPU. Process like bacula-fd/sd/dir exactly the same.
wh
I will try to answer all things that you said friends.
- I don't use compression method to do a backup.
- The database is postgres and during backup isn't taking all CPU or
memory, only a 10% CPU. Process like bacula-fd/sd/dir exactly the same.
- Im not backing up to a tape, the two backups are fr
Hi,
I think that's an issue for just about any program that moves files around.
For the same volume of data, the overhead (amount of work) required for
asking the OS to open a file, and afterwards to close it, for the filesystem
to find out the physical addresses of the pieces of that file, etc. a
On 23 Aug 2007 at 12:53, Angel Mieres wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files
> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb.
> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the second one
> 25.000 KB/sec?(the backup is to
Angel Mieres wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Im testing bacula with two jobs. One of them, backup over 70.000 files
> and have 2 Gb. Second one have over 100 files and have 1Gb.
> Why the first job is getting speed of 3.000 KB/sec and the second one
> 25.000 KB/sec?(the backup is to a file on both cases)
> H
13 matches
Mail list logo
