From: Rich D. <rdu...@th...> - 2005-10-30 02:56:29
|
Hi again backuppc-ers! I've got a bit of a fishy situation. I have a workstations here, which is an ubuntu breezy machine. It is currently set to be backed up via ssh/rsync. Network is 100MB on two sixteen port switches. The full backup took 582 minutes, 443,888 files of 11,477 MB. The incremental took 631 minutes, 12,082 files of 187 MB. The backuppc server (2.1.1) is a dedicated machine. Nothing running there except for backuppc. Nothing was going on in the network at the time of either backup. The workstation was idle for both backup attempts. There were two backups running during the full backup, only one going on during the incremental. It took three tries to get the incremental done. The first two failed with SIG=Alarm. I increased the timeout for this workstation by an order of magnitude, and was finally able to get an incremental finished. rsync on both machines is version 2.6.5, protocol level 29. I've got a number of other breezy machines and I don't have any problems with them. Generally, the incremental backup takes around 15-25% the time of a full backup. Is there any way to 'see inside' the backuppc/rsync job to see where the time is going? Why would the incremental take *longer* than a full? Thank you. Regards, Rich -- Current Conditions in Des Moines, IA Overcast Temp 57.2F Winds out of the Southwest at 12mph |
From: Les M. <le...@fu...> - 2005-10-30 03:08:24
|
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 21:56, Rich Duzenbury wrote: > The full backup took 582 minutes, 443,888 files of 11,477 MB. > The incremental took 631 minutes, 12,082 files of 187 MB. Could the time be off far enough between machines that most of the files on the target appeared newer than the server's time of the last backup run? This would make rsync do a block-checksum comparison of the old/new copies which I'd still expect to be faster than a copy but it might not if either machine was slow or busy doing something else. -- Les Mikesell le...@fu... |
From: Rich D. <rdu...@th...> - 2005-10-30 04:01:20
|
On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 22:08 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 21:56, Rich Duzenbury wrote: > > > The full backup took 582 minutes, 443,888 files of 11,477 MB. > > The incremental took 631 minutes, 12,082 files of 187 MB. > > Could the time be off far enough between machines that most > of the files on the target appeared newer than the server's > time of the last backup run? Interesting idea. I wouldn't think so, as both machines are synced up via ntp. Indeed, upon review I see that the server and client both indicate that it's Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:49pm. > This would make rsync do a > block-checksum comparison of the old/new copies which > I'd still expect to be faster than a copy but it might > not if either machine was slow or busy doing something else. > As I indicated in my first message, pretty much the only thing going on at that hour were backups, and the workstation in question was idle in both cases. During the full, two backups were run. During the incremental, only the one was run. Given the fact that I had to increase the ClientTimeout so much makes me wonder if something is going on with rsync. Thanks for thinking about this. Regards, Rich |