Are my Bacula backups fast enough?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Are my Bacula backups fast enough?

Jason Voorhees
Hello guys:

I'd like you to share some thoughs about my scenario and performance.
Here's what I have:

Server (Director & Storage)
====================
System: KVM guest running on Proxmox 4.1 host
Network: virtio
Storage: 5x200 GB Virtual disks (qcow2 format), used as physical volumes
Filesystem: ext4 'by default' on LVM
Memory: 4 GB
CPU: 1 core on guest, 8 cores on host (Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz)
Bacula: 7.4.0 built from source
OS: CentOS 7 x86_64
Roles: Bacula with MySQL (used only for backups, nothing else)



- iperf tests between my bacula server and one of my clients (which is
also a KVM guest sharing the same physical host with virtio network)
gave me near 9.78 Gbps rate which seems awesome.
- I'm using disk backups without Attribute Spooling enabled, yet.
- GZIP compression and SHA1 signatures are also enabled for all my jobs.
- MySQL hasn't been tuned at all, it came by default.


Yesterday, I ran a Full backup for a Samba fileserver with 280 GB of
data. Such backup took about 6 hours, having near 15% compression rate
and near 240 GB written by SD and FD daemons. This Samba server have
Bacula Client 2.4.4.

Today I'm running a Full backup for a Zimbra server with near 450 GB
of data to be backed up. I'm running iptraf-ng right now and I can see
variable rate transfer through my network interface from 10 Mbps up to
80 Mbps with an average of 50 Mbps.

I'd like to hear some thoughts from you because I have some questions:

- Is it normal to have a rate of 50 Mbps rate while running a backup?
- How can I know if MySQL is a bottleneck?
- Should I disable compression and signatures to improve speed of
backups? Is it worth it?
- What if I enable attribute spooling? I've read posts in which some
people noticed an improvement on data transfer but the despooling
process of attributes it took too long.
- Is my backup speed good enough? Should I worry about it? Can they be
even faster?

Thanks in advance for reading and helping :)

Have a nice day

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are my Bacula backups fast enough?

Jason Voorhees
I forgot to say that Bacula client on my Zimbra server (which is
currently being backed up) is using most of the CPU. According to top
command, bacula-fd is reporting between 10%, 30% or even 80% of CPU
usage. Meanwhile, swap usage is currently low (~ 3%)

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jason Voorhees <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello guys:
>
> I'd like you to share some thoughs about my scenario and performance.
> Here's what I have:
>
> Server (Director & Storage)
> ====================
> System: KVM guest running on Proxmox 4.1 host
> Network: virtio
> Storage: 5x200 GB Virtual disks (qcow2 format), used as physical volumes
> Filesystem: ext4 'by default' on LVM
> Memory: 4 GB
> CPU: 1 core on guest, 8 cores on host (Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz)
> Bacula: 7.4.0 built from source
> OS: CentOS 7 x86_64
> Roles: Bacula with MySQL (used only for backups, nothing else)
>
>
>
> - iperf tests between my bacula server and one of my clients (which is
> also a KVM guest sharing the same physical host with virtio network)
> gave me near 9.78 Gbps rate which seems awesome.
> - I'm using disk backups without Attribute Spooling enabled, yet.
> - GZIP compression and SHA1 signatures are also enabled for all my jobs.
> - MySQL hasn't been tuned at all, it came by default.
>
>
> Yesterday, I ran a Full backup for a Samba fileserver with 280 GB of
> data. Such backup took about 6 hours, having near 15% compression rate
> and near 240 GB written by SD and FD daemons. This Samba server have
> Bacula Client 2.4.4.
>
> Today I'm running a Full backup for a Zimbra server with near 450 GB
> of data to be backed up. I'm running iptraf-ng right now and I can see
> variable rate transfer through my network interface from 10 Mbps up to
> 80 Mbps with an average of 50 Mbps.
>
> I'd like to hear some thoughts from you because I have some questions:
>
> - Is it normal to have a rate of 50 Mbps rate while running a backup?
> - How can I know if MySQL is a bottleneck?
> - Should I disable compression and signatures to improve speed of
> backups? Is it worth it?
> - What if I enable attribute spooling? I've read posts in which some
> people noticed an improvement on data transfer but the despooling
> process of attributes it took too long.
> - Is my backup speed good enough? Should I worry about it? Can they be
> even faster?
>
> Thanks in advance for reading and helping :)
>
> Have a nice day

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are my Bacula backups fast enough?

Ana Emília M. Arruda
In reply to this post by Jason Voorhees
Hello Jason,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Jason Voorhees <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello guys:

I'd like you to share some thoughs about my scenario and performance.
Here's what I have:

Server (Director & Storage)
====================
System: KVM guest running on Proxmox 4.1 host
Network: virtio
Storage: 5x200 GB Virtual disks (qcow2 format), used as physical volumes
Filesystem: ext4 'by default' on LVM
Memory: 4 GB
CPU: 1 core on guest, 8 cores on host (Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz)
Bacula: 7.4.0 built from source
OS: CentOS 7 x86_64
Roles: Bacula with MySQL (used only for backups, nothing else)


​Which kind of physical disks you have? Could you try a dd command to tell us their writing speed performance?​
 


- iperf tests between my bacula server and one of my clients (which is
also a KVM guest sharing the same physical host with virtio network)
gave me near 9.78 Gbps rate which seems awesome.
- I'm using disk backups without Attribute Spooling enabled, yet.
- GZIP compression and SHA1 signatures are also enabled for all my jobs.
- MySQL hasn't been tuned at all, it came by default.

​Attribute spooling, a lower level of GZIP compression (default is 6 and affects backup performances) and MySQL tunning are a good idea to improve backup performance. ​



Yesterday, I ran a Full backup for a Samba fileserver with 280 GB of
data. Such backup took about 6 hours, having near 15% compression rate
and near 240 GB written by SD and FD daemons. This Samba server have
Bacula Client 2.4.4.

​Bacula 2.4.4 is outdated. The last version is a 7.4.0 with a lot of new improvements. Do you think it would be posible for you to migrate/install/build a more recent version?​
 

Today I'm running a Full backup for a Zimbra server with near 450 GB
of data to be backed up. I'm running iptraf-ng right now and I can see
variable rate transfer through my network interface from 10 Mbps up to
80 Mbps with an average of 50 Mbps.

​These are good networks transfer rates in a gigabit switch infrastructure. Which kind of network environment do you have?​
 

I'd like to hear some thoughts from you because I have some questions:

- Is it normal to have a rate of 50 Mbps rate while running a backup?
- How can I know if MySQL is a bottleneck?
- Should I disable compression and signatures to improve speed of
backups? Is it worth it?
- What if I enable attribute spooling? I've read posts in which some
people noticed an improvement on data transfer but the despooling
process of attributes it took too long.
- Is my backup speed good enough? Should I worry about it? Can they be
even faster?

​It is very recommended to upgrade to a new version (preferably 7.4.0) before trying to solve these problems.​


Thanks in advance for reading and helping :)

Have a nice day

​Best regards,
Ana​

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are my Bacula backups fast enough?

Josh Fisher
In reply to this post by Jason Voorhees


On 4/22/2016 11:10 AM, Jason Voorhees wrote:
> I forgot to say that Bacula client on my Zimbra server (which is
> currently being backed up) is using most of the CPU. According to top
> command, bacula-fd is reporting between 10%, 30% or even 80% of CPU
> usage. Meanwhile, swap usage is currently low (~ 3%)

This is probably due to GZIP compression. For a full backup there is
simply a lot to compress. Try using a low compression level, like -1
instead of the default -6. The default is biased toward greater
compression at the expense of speed (higher CPU usage). It is a
tradeoff. No compression at all is not necessarily faster, since then
there is more data to transmit over the network, but it does drastically
reduce CPU usage. It depends on whether or not the higher CPU usage
affects services that are running on the client machine. I like to use
level -3 or lower as a compromise.

>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jason Voorhees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello guys:
>>
>> I'd like you to share some thoughs about my scenario and performance.
>> Here's what I have:
>>
>> Server (Director & Storage)
>> ====================
>> System: KVM guest running on Proxmox 4.1 host
>> Network: virtio
>> Storage: 5x200 GB Virtual disks (qcow2 format), used as physical volumes
>> Filesystem: ext4 'by default' on LVM
>> Memory: 4 GB
>> CPU: 1 core on guest, 8 cores on host (Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz)
>> Bacula: 7.4.0 built from source
>> OS: CentOS 7 x86_64
>> Roles: Bacula with MySQL (used only for backups, nothing else)
>>
>>
>>
>> - iperf tests between my bacula server and one of my clients (which is
>> also a KVM guest sharing the same physical host with virtio network)
>> gave me near 9.78 Gbps rate which seems awesome.
>> - I'm using disk backups without Attribute Spooling enabled, yet.
>> - GZIP compression and SHA1 signatures are also enabled for all my jobs.
>> - MySQL hasn't been tuned at all, it came by default.
>>
>>
>> Yesterday, I ran a Full backup for a Samba fileserver with 280 GB of
>> data. Such backup took about 6 hours, having near 15% compression rate
>> and near 240 GB written by SD and FD daemons. This Samba server have
>> Bacula Client 2.4.4.
>>
>> Today I'm running a Full backup for a Zimbra server with near 450 GB
>> of data to be backed up. I'm running iptraf-ng right now and I can see
>> variable rate transfer through my network interface from 10 Mbps up to
>> 80 Mbps with an average of 50 Mbps.
>>
>> I'd like to hear some thoughts from you because I have some questions:
>>
>> - Is it normal to have a rate of 50 Mbps rate while running a backup?
>> - How can I know if MySQL is a bottleneck?
>> - Should I disable compression and signatures to improve speed of
>> backups? Is it worth it?
>> - What if I enable attribute spooling? I've read posts in which some
>> people noticed an improvement on data transfer but the despooling
>> process of attributes it took too long.
>> - Is my backup speed good enough? Should I worry about it? Can they be
>> even faster?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for reading and helping :)
>>
>> Have a nice day
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
> Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
> your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
> reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
> _______________________________________________
> Bacula-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users