[Bacula-users] Full Backup from NFS mount very slow

[DAHLBOKUM Markus (FPT INDUSTRIAL)]

Hi,

up to now I did my backup via FD and SD on two different machines. But as the main job gets a broken pipe when waiting for the second tape, I now switched back to FD and SD on the same machine and mounting the directories to be backed up as NFS mounts.

The transfer rate over the network FD was between 40 and 65 MB/s (1Gbit LAN, LTO4 drive).
Now with NFS I get 600 kB/s.

NFS transfer rates are good, copying a file in a shell gives me 90 - 100 MB/s.

Is this a problem with building the file list? There are lots of files to be backed up.

Thanks.
Kind regards,
Markus

[Phil Stracchino]

Post by DAHLBOKUM Markus (FPT INDUSTRIAL)
up to now I did my backup via FD and SD on two different machines. But
as the main job gets a broken pipe when waiting for the second tape, I
now switched back to FD and SD on the same machine and mounting the
directories to be backed up as NFS mounts.
The transfer rate over the network FD was between 40 and 65 MB/s (1Gbit LAN, LTO4 drive).
Now with NFS I get 600 kB/s.

Doing backups over NFS is almost invariably a bad idea. You would be
much better off to simply put a Bacula client on the machine you're now
backing up via NFS mounts and back it up directly.

(Truth to tell, this is even more true of the machine in question is
running Linux. The Linux nfsd, honestly, is and always has been a poor
implementation.)