Hello,
just small FYI, after switching from 9.x.x to 11.x.x it seems that
speed problem has been fixed.
Cejka Rudolf wrote (2020/04/30):
> Josh Fisher wrote (2020/04/23):
> > On 4/22/2020 12:23 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >I have exactly the same problem: Too slow filesystem tra
Josh Fisher wrote (2020/04/23):
> On 4/22/2020 12:23 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
> > Hello,
> >I have exactly the same problem: Too slow filesystem traversal by
> > Bacula Windows Client. I think that it has to be some problem with
> > Bacula Client cross compilation (low level of compiler optimali
is it a virtual machine? validate how you are sharing the network on
hiper-v?
Did you do a basic copy test? Example copy a 1GB file using shared folder
from windows to windows and see the transfer rate.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:07 AM Andrew Watkins wrote:
> Just an update and thanks for the in
Just an update and thanks for the input so far.
- The "bareos-fd Version: 17.2.4" idea seems to improve things a little,
but not 100% and not a really solution.
- The problem is on the client and nothing to do with the network (well
at this time), since I did a test using the "estimate level=fu
On 4/22/2020 12:23 PM, Cejka Rudolf wrote:
Hello,
I have exactly the same problem: Too slow filesystem traversal by
Bacula Windows Client. I think that it has to be some problem with
Bacula Client cross compilation (low level of compiler optimalization?),
some setting or some other little th
You could try using the Windows Task Manager, Resource Monitor or Performance
Monitor to check the CPU and disk activity.
__Martin
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:39:44 +0100, Andrew Watkins said:
>
> Thanks folks,
>
> I have a feeling it's nothing to do with the network, but the speed of
> bacu
Hello,
I have exactly the same problem: Too slow filesystem traversal by
Bacula Windows Client. I think that it has to be some problem with
Bacula Client cross compilation (low level of compiler optimalization?),
some setting or some other little thing, because if I switch the
client to Bareos, i
Thanks folks,
I have a feeling it's nothing to do with the network, but the speed of
bacula searching the filesystem.
In 1 minute it only searched 11k (Examined=67,235 & 60seconds later
Examined=72,873)
Any ideas except get a better server?
and the following seems to be showing that there
The speed that Andrew shows us is Rate: 3721.5 KB / s You must evaluate the
network. the speed they trade. the speed of the network ports
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 9:10 AM Peter Milesson wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-04-20 12:37, Andrew Watkins wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Still not having much luck with speed
On 2020-04-20 12:37, Andrew Watkins wrote:
Hi,
Still not having much luck with speed of my Windows backup, so any
pointers?
Even when I used Networker backup windows was slower but not this bad!
Solaris Client Full: many filesystems
Elapsed time: 10 hours 31 mins 14 secs
Prio
HI.
I have noticed that linux/unix go a little faster than Windows.
Windows takes time to start first because of the VSS module (which is
important).
The deployment and configuration of the network influences.
My Best Windows rate: 46682.9 KB/s (46 MB/s)
My Best Linux rate: 102MB/s
In Avera
Some Windows systems do not like Bacula's default value of 64k for the
Maximum Network Buffer Size setting. Try reducing that to 32k.
Also, test network throughput between the bacula-sd host and the Windows
host with iperf or some network performance utility to make sure it is
indeed a Bacula
Hi,
Still not having much luck with speed of my Windows backup, so any
pointers?
Even when I used Networker backup windows was slower but not this bad!
Solaris Client Full: many filesystems
Elapsed time: 10 hours 31 mins 14 secs
Priority: 10
FD Files Written:
On 2020-04-01 11:28, Andrew Watkins wrote:
Hello,
Just started using Bacula and at this time (early stages) I find my
UNIX/Solaris full backups are running at a good speed, but our window
server is slow. There is a chance it is just the number of files (Yes,
I am ignoring profiles). My ques
14 matches
Mail list logo
