I am sorry to harp on about this, but, it gets back to my analysis of
rsync under backuppc a few months ago - I still think that we need to do
an implementation of File::RsyncP in C as opposed to perl. I have done
some memory requirement analysis of a raw rsync backup of a large
filesystem against a BackupPC backup of the same filesystem, and the
differences are astonishing in terms of memory requirements, not to
mention the raw speed of the actual backup. I know that there are some
additional requirements for File:RsyncP, but, I am sure that running in
C will be a huge amount more efficient than running in an interpreted
Unfortunately, at the moment, I have a few other commercial projects I
am busy with and cannot immediately contribute to such a development,
but in my view, this would be the most impotant performance-enhancing
developments for BackupPC.
I could quote specific examples of BackupPC (using File::RsyncP) vs
rsync itself, but I will not bore you or myself, but I can assure you
that the difference in speed is about 10:1. Memory usage is also
DRAMATICALLY less in the raw rsync environment, I would guess at least
50% less RAM requirement.
I am hoping to finish my current commercial projects in the next few
weeks, at which stage, I will have a look at File::RsyncP unless someone
else has taken the bait resulting from this e-mail and developed the
appropriate C code in the mean-time.
Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote:
> On 09/02 05:09 , David Relson wrote:
>>For the curious, the locate command indicates I have 2927627 files
>>using 46 GB of the single partition HD.
> that's a healthy number. the box I have with the most files, only has 3/4
> million (developer's workstation). that will likely change as I'm now
> backing up a mailserver that has 2000 users, gets several GB of mail a day,
> and they're all running Maildir now...
>>With that large file count, it's not surprising that BackupPC_dump
>>needs a lot of memory. The big question is whether the memory is being
>>used efficiently. I'd rather not add more ram to the box, but if
>>that's the only way to do backups, then I'll have to do so.
> AFAIK, that's what you have to do. I wouldn't recommend less than 1GB of RAM
> for a backuppc box.