Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Speed of backups

Jason Voorhees schrieb:
> I think I was confusing some terms. The speed I reported was the total
> elapsed time that my backup took. But now according to your comments I
> got this from my logs:
> With spooling enabled:
> - Job write elapsed time: 102 MB/s average
> - Despooling elapsed time: 84 MB/s average
> Without spooling enabled:
> - Job write elapsed time: 68 MB/s average
> These are averages obtained from a group of 5 or more jobs of each
> case (with and without spooling). So I can see that with spooling
> enabled the process of writing to tape get higher speeds than
> copy-from-fd/write-to-tape without spooling enabled.
> Now the question is, why am I getting so low despooling speeds if I
> use LTO-5 tapes? Shouldn't I have higher speeds than you with LTO-4
> tapes?
> ...

I got the biggest gain by changing "Maximum File Size" to 5 GB. How
fast is the disk where you spool file is locatet?

A different test would be to create a 10 GB file with data from
/dev/urandom in the spool directory and the write this file to tape
(eg. nst0). Note: this will overwrite your existing data on tape and
you might have to release the drive in bacula.

dd if=/spoolfile-directory/testfile of=/dev/nst0 bs=xxxk (your bacula block


WhatsUp Gold - Download Free Network Management Software
The most intuitive, comprehensive, and cost-effective network
management toolset available today. Delivers lowest initial
acquisition cost and overall TCO of any competing solution.


Bacula-users mailing list