[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance
From: |
Scott Lamb |
Subject: |
Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:36:12 -0800 |
On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Corey Puffalt wrote:
In my particular case it was primarily CPU bound as you can see
from the time info. The CPU was between 95-100% busy the whole
time. This is what concerned me. Having a backup program being IO
bound would hardly be a surprise to anyone. Being CPU bound was
somewhat of a surprise to me. Of course, for those of you with
3.2Ghz versus 1Ghz machines are likely no longer CPU bound.
I saw your numbers, but they're for a repair of an existing
filesystem, not a transfer. I'm not too surprised to see high CPU
usage in your case - no network IO, and a command that may not have
gotten as much optimization.
--
Scott Lamb <http://www.slamb.org/>
- [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Corey Puffalt, 2007/02/11
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Jim C. Nasby, 2007/02/12
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Dave Howorth, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Greg Freemyer, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Charles Duffy, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Scott Lamb, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Corey Puffalt, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, rdiff, 2007/02/13
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance,
Scott Lamb <=
- Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Performance, Dave Howorth, 2007/02/14