* Send-recieve performance
@ 2016-07-20 9:15 Libor Klepáč
2016-07-22 12:59 ` Henk Slager
2016-07-22 13:47 ` Martin Raiber
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Libor Klepáč @ 2016-07-20 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Hello,
we use backuppc to backup our hosting machines.
I have recently migrated it to btrfs, so we can use send-recieve for offsite backups of our backups.
I have several btrfs volumes, each hosts nspawn container, which runs in /system subvolume and has backuppc data in /backuppc subvolume
.
I use btrbk to do snapshots and transfer.
Local side is set to keep 5 daily snapshots, remote side to hold some history. (not much yet, i'm using it this way for few weeks).
If you know backuppc behaviour: for every backup (even incremental), it creates full directory tree of each backed up machine even if it has no modified files and places one small file in each, which holds some info for backuppc.
So after few days i ran into ENOSPACE on one volume, because my metadata grow, because of inlineing.
I switched from mdata=DUP to mdata=single (now I see it's possible to change inline file size, right?).
My problem is, that on some volumes, send-recieve is relatively fast (rate in MB/s or hundreds of kB/s) but on biggest volume (biggest in space and biggest in contained filesystem trees) rate is just 5-30kB/s.
Here is btrbk progress copyed
785MiB 47:52:00 [12.9KiB/s] [4.67KiB/s]
ie. 758MB in 48 hours.
Reciever has high IO/wait - 90-100%, when i push data using btrbk.
When I run dd over ssh it can do 50-75MB/s.
Sending machine is debian jessie with kernel 4.5.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (upstream 4.5.3) , btrfsprogs 4.4.1. It is virtual machine running on volume exported from MD3420, 4 SAS disks in RAID10.
Recieving machine is debian jessie on Dell T20 with 4x3TB disks in MD RAID5 , kernel is 4.4.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (upstream 4.4.6), btrfsprgos 4.4.1
BTRFS volumes were created using those listed versions.
Sender:
---------
#mount | grep hosting
/dev/sdg on /mnt/btrfs/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/)
/dev/sdg on /var/lib/container/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=259,subvol=/system)
/dev/sdg on /var/lib/container/hosting/var/lib/backuppc type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=260,subvol=/backuppc)
#btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/hosting
Overall:
Device size: 840.00GiB
Device allocated: 815.03GiB
Device unallocated: 24.97GiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 522.76GiB
Free (estimated): 283.66GiB (min: 271.18GiB)
Data ratio: 1.00
Metadata ratio: 1.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
Data,single: Size:710.98GiB, Used:452.29GiB
/dev/sdg 710.98GiB
Metadata,single: Size:103.98GiB, Used:70.46GiB
/dev/sdg 103.98GiB
System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:112.00KiB
/dev/sdg 64.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sdg 24.97GiB
# btrfs filesystem show /mnt/btrfs/hosting
Label: 'BackupPC-BcomHosting' uuid: edecc92a-646a-4585-91a0-9cbb556303e9
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 522.75GiB
devid 1 size 840.00GiB used 815.03GiB path /dev/sdg
#Reciever:
#mount | grep hosting
/dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs on /mnt/btrfs/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/)
#btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/hosting/
Overall:
Device size: 896.00GiB
Device allocated: 604.07GiB
Device unallocated: 291.93GiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 565.98GiB
Free (estimated): 313.62GiB (min: 167.65GiB)
Data ratio: 1.00
Metadata ratio: 1.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 55.80MiB)
Data,single: Size:530.01GiB, Used:508.32GiB
/dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 530.01GiB
Metadata,single: Size:74.00GiB, Used:57.65GiB
/dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 74.00GiB
System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:80.00KiB
/dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 64.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 291.93GiB
#btrfs filesystem show /mnt/btrfs/hosting/
Label: none uuid: 2d7ea471-8794-42ed-bec2-a6ad83f7b038
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 564.56GiB
devid 1 size 896.00GiB used 604.07GiB path /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs
What can i do about it? I tried to defragment /backuppc subvolume (without recursive option), should i do it for all snapshots/subvolumes on both sides?
Should upgrade to 4.6.x kernel help (there is 4.6.3 in backports)?
Thanks for any answer.
With regards,
Libor
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Send-recieve performance
2016-07-20 9:15 Send-recieve performance Libor Klepáč
@ 2016-07-22 12:59 ` Henk Slager
2016-07-22 13:27 ` Libor Klepáč
2016-07-22 13:47 ` Martin Raiber
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Henk Slager @ 2016-07-22 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Libor Klepáč; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Libor Klepáč <libor.klepac@bcom.cz> wrote:
> Hello,
> we use backuppc to backup our hosting machines.
>
> I have recently migrated it to btrfs, so we can use send-recieve for offsite backups of our backups.
>
> I have several btrfs volumes, each hosts nspawn container, which runs in /system subvolume and has backuppc data in /backuppc subvolume
> .
> I use btrbk to do snapshots and transfer.
> Local side is set to keep 5 daily snapshots, remote side to hold some history. (not much yet, i'm using it this way for few weeks).
>
> If you know backuppc behaviour: for every backup (even incremental), it creates full directory tree of each backed up machine even if it has no modified files and places one small file in each, which holds some info for backuppc.
> So after few days i ran into ENOSPACE on one volume, because my metadata grow, because of inlineing.
> I switched from mdata=DUP to mdata=single (now I see it's possible to change inline file size, right?).
I would try mounting both send and receive volumes with max_inline=0
So then for all small new- and changed files, the filedata will be
stored in data chunks and not inline in the metadata chunks.
That you changed metadata profile from dup to single is unrelated in
principle. single for metadata instead of dup is half the write I/O
for the harddisks, so in that sense it might speed up send actions a
bit. I guess almost all time is spend in seeks.
> My problem is, that on some volumes, send-recieve is relatively fast (rate in MB/s or hundreds of kB/s) but on biggest volume (biggest in space and biggest in contained filesystem trees) rate is just 5-30kB/s.
>
> Here is btrbk progress copyed
> 785MiB 47:52:00 [12.9KiB/s] [4.67KiB/s]
>
> ie. 758MB in 48 hours.
>
> Reciever has high IO/wait - 90-100%, when i push data using btrbk.
> When I run dd over ssh it can do 50-75MB/s.
The send part is the speed bottleneck as it looks like, you can test
and isolate it by doing a dummy send and pipe it to | mbuffer >
/dev/null and see what speed you get.
> Sending machine is debian jessie with kernel 4.5.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (upstream 4.5.3) , btrfsprogs 4.4.1. It is virtual machine running on volume exported from MD3420, 4 SAS disks in RAID10.
>
> Recieving machine is debian jessie on Dell T20 with 4x3TB disks in MD RAID5 , kernel is 4.4.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (upstream 4.4.6), btrfsprgos 4.4.1
>
> BTRFS volumes were created using those listed versions.
>
> Sender:
> ---------
> #mount | grep hosting
> /dev/sdg on /mnt/btrfs/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/)
> /dev/sdg on /var/lib/container/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=259,subvol=/system)
> /dev/sdg on /var/lib/container/hosting/var/lib/backuppc type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=260,subvol=/backuppc)
>
> #btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/hosting
> Overall:
> Device size: 840.00GiB
> Device allocated: 815.03GiB
> Device unallocated: 24.97GiB
> Device missing: 0.00B
> Used: 522.76GiB
> Free (estimated): 283.66GiB (min: 271.18GiB)
> Data ratio: 1.00
> Metadata ratio: 1.00
> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
>
> Data,single: Size:710.98GiB, Used:452.29GiB
> /dev/sdg 710.98GiB
>
> Metadata,single: Size:103.98GiB, Used:70.46GiB
> /dev/sdg 103.98GiB
This is a very large ratio metadata/data. Large and scattered
metadata, even on fast rotational media, will result in slow send
operation is my experience ( incremental send, about 10G metadata). So
hopefully, when all the small files and many directories from backuppc
are in data chunks and metadata is significantly smaller, send will be
faster. However, maybe it is just the huge amount of files and not
inlining of small files that makes metadata so big.
I assume incremental send of snapshots is done.
> System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:112.00KiB
> /dev/sdg 64.00MiB
>
> Unallocated:
> /dev/sdg 24.97GiB
>
> # btrfs filesystem show /mnt/btrfs/hosting
> Label: 'BackupPC-BcomHosting' uuid: edecc92a-646a-4585-91a0-9cbb556303e9
> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 522.75GiB
> devid 1 size 840.00GiB used 815.03GiB path /dev/sdg
>
> #Reciever:
> #mount | grep hosting
> /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs on /mnt/btrfs/hosting type btrfs (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/)
>
> #btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/hosting/
> Overall:
> Device size: 896.00GiB
> Device allocated: 604.07GiB
> Device unallocated: 291.93GiB
> Device missing: 0.00B
> Used: 565.98GiB
> Free (estimated): 313.62GiB (min: 167.65GiB)
> Data ratio: 1.00
> Metadata ratio: 1.00
> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 55.80MiB)
>
> Data,single: Size:530.01GiB, Used:508.32GiB
> /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 530.01GiB
>
> Metadata,single: Size:74.00GiB, Used:57.65GiB
> /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 74.00GiB
>
> System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:80.00KiB
> /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 64.00MiB
>
> Unallocated:
> /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs 291.93GiB
>
> #btrfs filesystem show /mnt/btrfs/hosting/
> Label: none uuid: 2d7ea471-8794-42ed-bec2-a6ad83f7b038
> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 564.56GiB
> devid 1 size 896.00GiB used 604.07GiB path /dev/mapper/vgPecDisk2-lvHostingBackupBtrfs
>
>
>
> What can i do about it? I tried to defragment /backuppc subvolume (without recursive option), should i do it for all snapshots/subvolumes on both sides?
> Should upgrade to 4.6.x kernel help (there is 4.6.3 in backports)?
I think defragmenting in this case won't help much, it results in cow
writes in metadata and files itself are mostly small as I understand.
Also 4.6.x kernel+progs won't help in principle.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Send-recieve performance
2016-07-22 12:59 ` Henk Slager
@ 2016-07-22 13:27 ` Libor Klepáč
2016-07-29 12:25 ` Libor Klepáč
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Libor Klepáč @ 2016-07-22 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Henk Slager; +Cc: linux-btrfs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 5255 bytes --]
Hello,
Dne pátek 22. Äervence 2016 14:59:43 CEST, Henk Slager napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Libor KlepÃ¡Ä <libor.klepac@bcom.cz> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > we use backuppc to backup our hosting machines.
> >
> > I have recently migrated it to btrfs, so we can use send-recieve for
> > offsite backups of our backups.
> >
> > I have several btrfs volumes, each hosts nspawn container, which runs in
> > /system subvolume and has backuppc data in /backuppc subvolume .
> > I use btrbk to do snapshots and transfer.
> > Local side is set to keep 5 daily snapshots, remote side to hold some
> > history. (not much yet, i'm using it this way for few weeks).
> >
> > If you know backuppc behaviour: for every backup (even incremental), it
> > creates full directory tree of each backed up machine even if it has no
> > modified files and places one small file in each, which holds some info
> > for backuppc. So after few days i ran into ENOSPACE on one volume,
> > because my metadata grow, because of inlineing. I switched from mdata=DUP
> > to mdata=single (now I see it's possible to change inline file size,
> > right?).
> I would try mounting both send and receive volumes with max_inline=0
> So then for all small new- and changed files, the filedata will be
> stored in data chunks and not inline in the metadata chunks.
Ok, i will try. Is there way to move existing files from metadata to data
chunks? Something like btrfs balance with convert filter?
> That you changed metadata profile from dup to single is unrelated in
> principle. single for metadata instead of dup is half the write I/O
> for the harddisks, so in that sense it might speed up send actions a
> bit. I guess almost all time is spend in seeks.
Yes, I just didn't realize that so much files will be in metadata structures
and it cought me be suprise.
>
> > My problem is, that on some volumes, send-recieve is relatively fast (rate
> > in MB/s or hundreds of kB/s) but on biggest volume (biggest in space and
> > biggest in contained filesystem trees) rate is just 5-30kB/s.
> >
> > Here is btrbk progress copyed
> > 785MiB 47:52:00 [12.9KiB/s] [4.67KiB/s]
> >
> > ie. 758MB in 48 hours.
> >
> > Reciever has high IO/wait - 90-100%, when i push data using btrbk.
> > When I run dd over ssh it can do 50-75MB/s.
>
> The send part is the speed bottleneck as it looks like, you can test
> and isolate it by doing a dummy send and pipe it to | mbuffer >
> /dev/null and see what speed you get.
I tried it already, did incremental send to file
#btrfs send -v -p ./backuppc.20160712/ ./backuppc.20160720_1/ | pv > /mnt/
data1/send
At subvol ./backuppc.20160720_1/
joining genl thread
18.9GiB 21:14:45 [ 259KiB/s]
Copied it over scp to reciever with speed 50.9MB/s.
No i will try recieve.
> > Sending machine is debian jessie with kernel 4.5.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 (upstream
> > 4.5.3) , btrfsprogs 4.4.1. It is virtual machine running on volume
> > exported from MD3420, 4 SAS disks in RAID10.
> >
> > Recieving machine is debian jessie on Dell T20 with 4x3TB disks in MD
> > RAID5 , kernel is 4.4.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (upstream 4.4.6), btrfsprgos 4.4.1
> >
> > BTRFS volumes were created using those listed versions.
> >
> > Sender:
> > ---------
> > #mount | grep hosting
> > /dev/sdg on /mnt/btrfs/hosting type btrfs
> > (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=5,subvol=/) /dev/sdg on
> > /var/lib/container/hosting type btrfs
> > (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=259,subvol=/system) /dev/sdg on
> > /var/lib/container/hosting/var/lib/backuppc type btrfs
> > (rw,noatime,space_cache,subvolid=260,subvol=/backuppc)
> >
> > #btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/hosting
> >
> > Overall:
> > Device size: 840.00GiB
> > Device allocated: 815.03GiB
> > Device unallocated: 24.97GiB
> > Device missing: 0.00B
> > Used: 522.76GiB
> > Free (estimated): 283.66GiB (min: 271.18GiB)
> > Data ratio: 1.00
> > Metadata ratio: 1.00
> > Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
> >
> > Data,single: Size:710.98GiB, Used:452.29GiB
> >
> > /dev/sdg 710.98GiB
> >
> > Metadata,single: Size:103.98GiB, Used:70.46GiB
> >
> > /dev/sdg 103.98GiB
>
> This is a very large ratio metadata/data. Large and scattered
> metadata, even on fast rotational media, will result in slow send
> operation is my experience ( incremental send, about 10G metadata). So
> hopefully, when all the small files and many directories from backuppc
> are in data chunks and metadata is significantly smaller, send will be
> faster. However, maybe it is just the huge amount of files and not
> inlining of small files that makes metadata so big.
Backuppc says
"Pool is 462.30GB comprising 5140707 files and 4369 directories"
that is only storage of files, not counting all the server trees
>
> I assume incremental send of snapshots is done.
Yes, it was incremental
Is anyone interested in btrfs-debug-tree -t 2 output?
It's 2.3GB big (187MB with xz -0 compression)
Libor
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±ý»k~ÏâØ^nr¡ö¦zË\x1aëh¨èÚ&£ûàz¿äz¹Þú+Ê+zf£¢·h§~Ûiÿÿïêÿêçz_è®\x0fæj:+v¨þ)ߣøm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Send-recieve performance
2016-07-20 9:15 Send-recieve performance Libor Klepáč
2016-07-22 12:59 ` Henk Slager
@ 2016-07-22 13:47 ` Martin Raiber
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Martin Raiber @ 2016-07-22 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1346 bytes --]
On 20.07.2016 11:15 Libor Klepáč wrote:
> Hello,
> we use backuppc to backup our hosting machines.
>
> I have recently migrated it to btrfs, so we can use send-recieve for offsite backups of our backups.
>
> I have several btrfs volumes, each hosts nspawn container, which runs in /system subvolume and has backuppc data in /backuppc subvolume
> .
> I use btrbk to do snapshots and transfer.
> Local side is set to keep 5 daily snapshots, remote side to hold some history. (not much yet, i'm using it this way for few weeks).
>
> If you know backuppc behaviour: for every backup (even incremental), it creates full directory tree of each backed up machine even if it has no modified files and places one small file in each, which holds some info for backuppc.
> So after few days i ran into ENOSPACE on one volume, because my metadata grow, because of inlineing.
> I switched from mdata=DUP to mdata=single (now I see it's possible to change inline file size, right?).
I am biased, but UrBackup works like BackupPC, except it has a client,
and like btrbk puts every backup into a separate btrfs sub-volume with
snapshotting reducing metadata workload. Then you could create read-only
snapshots from the UrBackup sub-volumes and use e.g. buttersink to copy
those to another btrfs.
So maybe try that?
Regards,
Martin
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4242 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Send-recieve performance
2016-07-22 13:27 ` Libor Klepáč
@ 2016-07-29 12:25 ` Libor Klepáč
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Libor Klepáč @ 2016-07-29 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 4902 bytes --]
On pátek 22. Äervence 2016 13:27:15 CEST Libor KlepÃ¡Ä wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Dne pátek 22. Äervence 2016 14:59:43 CEST, Henk Slager napsal(a):
>
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Libor KlepÃ¡Ä <libor.klepac@bcom.cz>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hello,
> > > we use backuppc to backup our hosting machines.
> > >
> > > I have recently migrated it to btrfs, so we can use send-recieve for
> > > offsite backups of our backups.
> > >
> > > I have several btrfs volumes, each hosts nspawn container, which runs
> > > in
> > > /system subvolume and has backuppc data in /backuppc subvolume .
> > > I use btrbk to do snapshots and transfer.
> > > Local side is set to keep 5 daily snapshots, remote side to hold some
> > > history. (not much yet, i'm using it this way for few weeks).
> > >
> > > If you know backuppc behaviour: for every backup (even incremental), it
> > > creates full directory tree of each backed up machine even if it has no
> > > modified files and places one small file in each, which holds some info
> > > for backuppc. So after few days i ran into ENOSPACE on one volume,
> > > because my metadata grow, because of inlineing. I switched from
> > > mdata=DUP
> > > to mdata=single (now I see it's possible to change inline file size,
> > > right?).
> >
> > I would try mounting both send and receive volumes with max_inline=0
> > So then for all small new- and changed files, the filedata will be
> > stored in data chunks and not inline in the metadata chunks.
>
>
> Ok, i will try. Is there way to move existing files from metadata to data
> chunks? Something like btrfs balance with convert filter?
>
Writen on 25.7.2016:
I will recreate on new filesystems and do new send/receive
Writen on 29.7.2016:
Created new filesystem or copyed to new subvolumes after mounting with
max_inline=0
Difference is remarkable, for example
before:
------------------
btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/as/
Overall:
Device size: 320.00GiB
Device allocated: 144.06GiB
Device unallocated: 175.94GiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 122.22GiB
Free (estimated): 176.33GiB (min: 88.36GiB)
Data ratio: 1.00
Metadata ratio: 1.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 40.86MiB)
Data,single: Size:98.00GiB, Used:97.61GiB
/dev/sdb 98.00GiB
Metadata,single: Size:46.00GiB, Used:24.61GiB
/dev/sdb 46.00GiB
System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB
/dev/sdb 64.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sdb 175.94GiB
after:
-----------------------
btrfs filesystem usage /mnt/btrfs/as/
Overall:
Device size: 320.00GiB
Device allocated: 137.06GiB
Device unallocated: 182.94GiB
Device missing: 0.00B
Used: 54.36GiB
Free (estimated): 225.15GiB (min: 133.68GiB)
Data ratio: 1.00
Metadata ratio: 1.00
Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
Data,single: Size:91.00GiB, Used:48.79GiB
/dev/sdb 91.00GiB
Metadata,single: Size:46.00GiB, Used:5.58GiB
/dev/sdb 46.00GiB
System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB
/dev/sdb 64.00MiB
Unallocated:
/dev/sdb 182.94GiB
>
> > That you changed metadata profile from dup to single is unrelated in
> > principle. single for metadata instead of dup is half the write I/O
> > for the harddisks, so in that sense it might speed up send actions a
> > bit. I guess almost all time is spend in seeks.
>
>
> Yes, I just didn't realize that so much files will be in metadata structures
> and it cought me be suprise.
>
> > The send part is the speed bottleneck as it looks like, you can test
> > and isolate it by doing a dummy send and pipe it to | mbuffer >
> > /dev/null and see what speed you get.
>
>
> I tried it already, did incremental send to file
> #btrfs send -v -p ./backuppc.20160712/ ./backuppc.20160720_1/ | pv > /mnt/
> data1/send
> At subvol ./backuppc.20160720_1/
> joining genl thread
> 18.9GiB 21:14:45 [ 259KiB/s]
>
> Copied it over scp to reciever with speed 50.9MB/s.
> No i will try recieve.
>
Writen on 25.7.2016:
Receive did 1GB of those 19GB over weekend, so, canceled ...
Writen on 29.7.2016:
Even after clean filesystems mounted with max_inline=0, send/receive is slow.
I tried to unmount all filesystem, unload btrfs module, then loaded it again.
Send/receive still slow.
Then i set vm.dirty_bytes to 102400
and then set it to
vm.dirty_background_ratio = 10
vm.dirty_ratio = 20
And voila, speed went up dramaticaly, now it has transfered about 10GB in
30minutes!
Libor
ÿôèº{.nÇ+·®+%Ëÿ±éݶ\x17¥wÿº{.nÇ+·¥{±ý»k~ÏâØ^nr¡ö¦zË\x1aëh¨èÚ&£ûàz¿äz¹Þú+Ê+zf£¢·h§~Ûiÿÿïêÿêçz_è®\x0fæj:+v¨þ)ߣøm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-29 21:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-20 9:15 Send-recieve performance Libor Klepáč
2016-07-22 12:59 ` Henk Slager
2016-07-22 13:27 ` Libor Klepáč
2016-07-29 12:25 ` Libor Klepáč
2016-07-22 13:47 ` Martin Raiber
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.