Thanx for your answer,

The windows pc the size of backup is not more than 200MB.

This observed in 20% to 25% pc only. Other pc are working on quite acceptable speed.

Again I am taking backup with rsync method.

What should be check ??

On 3/28/07, Jason Hughes <> wrote:
nilesh vaghela wrote:
> Other 25% pc backcup is dead slow. The data transfer is in 20kbps.
> I found few things might cause problem.
> 1. Space within the directory name. ( I do not know but seems to be)
> 2. Tree structure
> 3. " ' " single quote in directory name cause problem.
> Presently we have solve this problem with following long procedure.
> If want to take backup of /data dir.
> I will list all the subdir of the /datat in include file list. per pc.
> But if the subdir are in large no. than it is a problem.
> I think it is some problem of naming convention of windows and linux.
> I am using backuppc 3.0 with rsync method.
> Any body who are facing the same problem ??
Hmm.  So, you're saying that by explicitly stating the directory names
in the included files list, it runs faster?  It might be the
codepage/character set the Windows boxes are installed with differs from
the backup server, maybe?

Out of curiosity... Do these clients have any folders with thousands of
files in them?  Traditionally, FAT32 has horrible performance in these
directories, so much so that copying them can be tens to hundreds of
times slower than the device's capability, due to the file system
overhead of finding the inode corresponding to the filename.  Their long
filename support is pretty nasty and bloated.  From memory, a directory
of mp3's with lots of characters in each name is my worst case, and it
has about 4000 files in it.  It's very slow just to pull up a directory
listing of it.  NTFS is better in this regard, but I'm not going to say


Nilesh Vaghela
Redhat Channel Partner and Training Partner
74, Nalanda Complex, Satellite Rd, Ahmedabad
25, The Emperor, Fatehgunj, Baroda.