RE: [BackupPC-users] Experiences with CPU/Ram/Discspace

[Hamish G. <ha...@pr...>]

I will try to do some benchmarks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:le...@fu...]
Sent: Montag, 25. April 2005 19:58
To: Hamish Guthrie
Cc: Backuppc-Users
Subject: RE: [BackupPC-users] Experiences with CPU/Ram/Discspace


On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 12:01, Hamish Guthrie wrote:

> My experience is that the native rsync is extremely quick and the resource
> utilisation is not particularly noticeable (some of my remotes have up to
> 50Gb data on them), however, the local backuppc rsync process takes a huge
> amount of time and resources to process.

One big difference is that the backuppc version always uses the previous
full backup as the baseline, ignoring incrementals  that have been
run between times.  Native rsync does not have an equivalent concept
so it may be transferring a lot less on each run.  Also, full runs
in the backuppc versions ignore matches on the timestamp/length and
do a full file comparison on every file.  For an apples-apples
comparision, time the first incremental after a full with backuppc
compared to a native rsync working against a previous run made
about the same time as the backuppc full.  That should show the
performance hit from being a perl program.

--
  Les Mikesell
   le...@fu...



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21.04.2005

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21.04.2005