Subject | Re[4]: [firebird-support] gbak speed |
---|---|
Author | Dmitry Kuzmenko |
Post date | 2013-04-11T11:07:49Z |
Hello, Nick!
Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:59:52 PM, you wrote:
NU> Hi Dmitry,
NU> are you saying that I should remove localhost from the database connection
NU> string to get faster performance? and that will work ok with other
NU> processes running that do connect via localhost continuing to run at the
NU> same time (this is a 24/7 system)?
I say that when you specify usual -b option, gbak transfers
database contents from server to local file. With localhost
data goes through tcp, wich can be slow.
Option -se designed in IB 6.0 to make backup (and restore)
by server, minimizing the network redundancy.
And yes, during backup/restore tests I've got that -se option
makes backup up to 2 times faster, and making restore up to 3-4 times
faster.
If you have database of 3-5 gb size on that server, you may
try to see what difference will be.
My opinion about 6 hours backup of 74gb database - it is too slow.
But, it maybe slow because of your RAID, or something else.
p.s. on Linux, specifying local database (without tcp) have same
effect that -se option. On Windows - it's better to use -se.
NU> On 11 April 2013 11:53, Dmitry Kuzmenko <kdv@...> wrote:
Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com
Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:59:52 PM, you wrote:
NU> Hi Dmitry,
NU> are you saying that I should remove localhost from the database connection
NU> string to get faster performance? and that will work ok with other
NU> processes running that do connect via localhost continuing to run at the
NU> same time (this is a 24/7 system)?
I say that when you specify usual -b option, gbak transfers
database contents from server to local file. With localhost
data goes through tcp, wich can be slow.
Option -se designed in IB 6.0 to make backup (and restore)
by server, minimizing the network redundancy.
And yes, during backup/restore tests I've got that -se option
makes backup up to 2 times faster, and making restore up to 3-4 times
faster.
If you have database of 3-5 gb size on that server, you may
try to see what difference will be.
My opinion about 6 hours backup of 74gb database - it is too slow.
But, it maybe slow because of your RAID, or something else.
p.s. on Linux, specifying local database (without tcp) have same
effect that -se option. On Windows - it's better to use -se.
NU> On 11 April 2013 11:53, Dmitry Kuzmenko <kdv@...> wrote:
>> Hello, André!--
>>
>> Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:42:01 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> >> How does this compare with the experience of others?
>>
>> AK> Hmmm. A quick calculation shows:
>> AK> My biggest database is 1/74 of the size of yours.
>> AK> I need ~5 Minutes to backup a freshly restored database, backup takes
>> AK> longer if the restore is longer ago (up to 6.5 minutes).
>>
>> too slow. at my old desktop with Athlon 64 x2 5200 and 3 SATA II drives
>> backup of 2.7GB database from one drive to another took from 3.5 to 5
>> minutes, depending on protocol used.
>> The fastest way to do backup is to use Services API,
>> i.e. -se option of gbak. And, to use -g option of course.
>>
>> So, with worst 5 minutes result, 74/2.7 = 2 hours and 17 minutes.
>>
>> And, with the a bit modern hardware (but still desktop with several
>> drives)
>> restore of another database, 1.5GB backup size and 3.9gb
>> resulting database also takes not more than 5 minutes,
>> via -se.
>> But, via localhost - around 1 hour.
>>
>> --
>> Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Visit http://www.firebirdsql.org and click the Resources item
>> on the main (top) menu. Try Knowledgebase and FAQ links !
>>
>> Also search the knowledgebases at http://www.ibphoenix.com
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
Dmitry Kuzmenko, www.ib-aid.com