Performance testing w BackupExec, comments requested.

[Star King of the Grape Trees]

Renamed the topic because I wanted to have some followup, and I believe 
that most are ignoring this message because of the subject line (I 
thought it was yet more spam)

Lawrence Walton wrote:

>Hi everyone!
>
>Don't worry this is good.
>
>This is a quick note about some informal performance testing I've been
>doing with BackupExec 10, using 2003 server, xp, and samba in the role of
>back-up-to-disk server. backing up a Exchange with about 125 gigs of data.
>
>Using XP workstation and 2003 server as the first target I was getting
>between 500 and 750 megs a minute.
>
>Samba as a target on a much inferior hardware then the XP and 2003
>server was averaging 900 to 1000 megs a minute.
>
>So far so good.
>
>Samba on a very nice Opteron raid system.... stock 2.6.15. Just a little
>more on the top end, 1350, and seeming never below 1000, satifactory but
>worth tweeking.
>
>I thought it slightly odd the Opteron was not working hard at all.
>
>No load in top, no waiting tasks in vmstat.
>
>Now I'm a kernel junky at heart and had read quite a bit about the io
>schedulers and thought it wise to change the scheduler to cfq.
>
>This improved the peeks and valleys, now it was consistently over 1100,
>but nothing more on the top end.
>
>Then I turned on sendfile.... And wow!
>
>To quote BackupExec.
>
>
>"Throughput Rate: 2264 MB/min"
>
>
>Now I realize this is not a real world test, and it's not a very good
>benchmark, but why not turn sendfile back on for kernels later then
>2.6.15?
> 
>
>  
>