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)
> Have bacula less performance with small files?
>
> Thx in advance.
>
>
>
Hi Angel,
We are making abstraction about filesystem performance and consider that all
files reside on the same type of filesystem.
First question is : did you use compression ? If yes, different factor
compression of each file could explain differences.
If not, I suspect a bottleness in the database insert.
running a query with 70.000 insert is quite longer than just 100 :-)
Perharps you could check your DB configuration and optimize certain value to
get insert goes quickly.
Here even my-huge.cnf wasn't suffisent to do the job nicely. (saving about
700.000 files)
If you use the lastest Bacula version the ./configure --enable-batch-insert can
help also.
If I don't abuse the rate is calculate by ratio kb backup in whole time.
--
Bruno Friedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ioda-Net Sàrl - www.ioda-net.ch
2830 Vellerat - Switzerland
Tél : ++41 32 435 7171
Fax : ++41 32 435 7172
gsm : ++41 78 802 6760
C'est Facile et Cool d'Évoluer en ligne : www.cfcel.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
