Re: [BackupPC-users] Curious

[Mark D. M. I. <tec...@te...>]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:16:37 -0400
"Guillaume Filion" <gf...@lo...> wrote:

> "Mark D. Mongtomery II" <tec...@te...> wrote:
> > I've been pondering some things as I browse the list and work on the
> machine I've been configuring and was wondering if anyone had some insight
> for me and any others who may be pondering the same things.
>=20
> I've been using BackupPC for a bit more than two years now with good
> success, so here are some toughts.
>=20
> > 1.  How much does the CPU speed affect the BackupPC process?
> > I know that a better CPU would allow more jobs to run simultaneously, b=
ut
> how much does the speed really affect each job?
>=20
> I think that the only real CPU constrain is to be able to compress with g=
zip
> fast enough. The other tasks should not too be CPU intensive.


Ok.  That's kinda what I thought.



> > 2.  How does network speed affect the process?  Obviously, a faster
> network would allow the files to transfer faster, but they still have to =
be
> processed and compressed.
>=20
> I think that it's the most important part of the system speedwise.


ah.

>=20
> > 3.  Assuming a standard 100Mbit lan, would a 1Gb NIC in the BackupPC box
> make any difference when doing multiple simultaneous backup jobs?  My log=
ic
> tells me only if there was actually a Gigabit port on the switch that the
> BackupPC box was plugged into.  But, as always, I may be wrong.
>=20
> Of course, the gigabit NIC on the PC will work at gigabit speed only if i=
t's
> connected to a gigabit port on the switch. If you connect a gigabit NIC t=
o a
> 100 Mbps port, you'll get 0 speed gain compared to a 100 Mbps NIC. If you
> have a fast enough PC, a gigabit NIC (and switch) should make an
> improvement.

OK.  So spending $50 for a decent GB NIC for the box would be a waste unles=
s they felt like upgrading the switch too.
Somehow I doubt it.


> > 4.  Assuming a pure IDE system, with the backuppc disk separate from the
> system disk, how much does hard disk speed affect the BackupPC process?
> > We currently have an older 20GB as the primary system disk, and then a
> nice new ATA133 80GB disk on the second channel as the backuppc disk.
> > The main issue is that the machine is a Cyrix MII 333 (250Mhz) so the
> disks are most likely running ATA33 or ATA66 (I haven't checked).
> > I'm trying to figure out if putting in an ATA controller to run the
> BackupPC disk (and also the disk we want to backup the backup onto
> eventually) would make any performance difference.
>=20
> As far as I know, the disk only has to be as fast as the network. So you
> shouldn't have problems with an ATA33 disk on a 100 Mbps network if your =
PC
> has enough RAM to avoid swaping. On a gigabit network, you'll need at lea=
st
> ATA66 with DMA and no swap. However, a 233 MHz CPU is quite slow; I'm not
> even sure if it can compress traffic at 100 Mbps. If I were you, I would
> rather buy another motherboard/CPU than a ATA controller.
>=20
> The specs really depend on how much hosts that you want to backup. I'm
> backuping 10 hosts on a 10 Mbps network with a PC similar to yours. It wo=
rks
> well, but it's a bit slow; if I had to backup more than 15-20 PCs, I would
> consider buying a bigger PC.

ah.
I'm only backing up 2 PCs.  It is a bit slow, but it's all we could come up=
 with.
Now I don't feel quite as bad about the slow critter.  :)
It has 256MB RAM, so it shouldn't be swapping much, if at all, since all it=
 really does is backuppc.

> Hope this helps a bit,
> GFK's

Yah.
Thanks.
That clears my head up a bit.   :)

Mark II


> --=20
> Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
> Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Qu=E9bec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
> PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/
>=20


--=20
END
-----------------------------------
TechieM2 (Mark D. Montgomery II)
https://techiem2.no-ip.com
tec...@te...
Isaiah 40:28-31
-----------------------------------
QED.
-----------------------------------