Non-incremental backups over NFS incorrect?

[eger]

I recently started experimenting with nfs mounted backups rather than ftp. The big problem I have with it is copying many directories and small files over nfs is extremely slow. So when I disable incremental backups (to do tar.gz backups) it is STILL copying the files over nfs before tarring them up.

Shouldn't the account be packages on the local server and then the tar.gz copied over nfs? This would really speedup the backup process for me.

[dave9000]

I agree it would be faster to do the tarball locally and then send across nfs. I think the reason they do it the way they do is due to possible drive space issues. Its assumed that the backup mount will have plenty of space available and the home partition may not so therefor they use the backup mount to copy the raw files over and then tarball it on the nfs mount.

there are packet size adjustments you can make to help with speed. we use 16384 for nfs packet size and it seems to work faster then 4096 or 8192.

As far as which setting is best for you I would recommend adjusting up and trying it

Also make sure your on at least 100 mbit full duplex network between the cpanel and nfs machines

There have been some issues with NIC's being set to half duplex causing slow backups,also if your on a managed switch make sure its set for full duplex.

[eger]

I will look into the packet size adjustments. But I think I may just go back to the FTP transfer options. FTP is still at least twice as fast as nfs right now. Unless the packet size makes some significant difference.

[dave9000]

I never have tried the ftp backups I always use the NFS version but in defense of the NFS version I have never had a corrupt backup set yet (knocking on wood ).

I have heard of people having issues with the ftp backup set in the past, they may have all the bugs out of it by now but just something to consider