-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 208
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bit ver 1.2 seems slow and does not respect older snapshots #989
Comments
Hello again,
Looks like I have been a bit overzealous and my testing was not thorough enough. Hence I am closing this now. Sorry for the noise and keep up the good work gentlemen. |
I am still not clear, if I upgrade to this version will it add a new copy of all my files the first time I run it? I have a number of very large files which rarely change and to add a new copy of all of those will give me a problem. |
I don*t know what distro you are running but I am running openSUSE Tumbleweed with / on btrfs and /home on xfs. Maybe it had to do with that, I don't know. I can tell you what I did to test it in the hope it helps you:
Other than that I had a problem similar to yours. The first new snapshot with bit 1.2 was a full backup of 1.1TB and only 800MB space left on the target drive. In the end I just deleted all old snapshots and let bit create a new one. It took roughly 3.5 hours to do so. I went having a beer with friends in the meantime. When I came back it was done. Good luck! |
@FreigeistZ Thanks for this. TBH I come to the same conclusion as you in smaller size VM tests. Thing however is that some do have to consider data preservation, and to just deleted all old snapshots like you mentioned isn't a solution (for everybody). That leaves a new strain of snapshots of course, but then, like @colinl mentions, available space most of the time becomes a PITA. Furthermore, can you tell us what your speeds where during that 3.5 hr backup, because my GUI didn't show anything, and diskio showed never before seen immense fluctuations. Was it in your case similar to the < 1.2 BiT version? I suspect it was, since rsync as far as I know hasn't changed, and when I use it cli it's all good, but that's just gut feeling. |
The full backup I took was started at Apr 30 19:14:02 grilltomate python3[11905]: backintime (atze/1): INFO: Take a new snapshot. Profile: 1 Main profile and ended at Apr 30 23:02:18 grilltomate python3[11905]: backintime (atze/1): INFO: Save config file It took, to be more precise, 3h48m or 228m. The total size was 1.12T. This translates to roughly I am using plasma5 and have ksysguard running during the backups and it has, just as every version of bit, always shown large swings or fluctuations concerning the transfer rate. |
Cheers @FreigeistZ for that, that helps, if not for showing me I'm not of (completely) my rocker. I also saw that by now Germar is on the case in #988 so I'm absolutely positive all hick ups will be solved. Apart from the permissions issue they mention he has a very valid point about the "re-evaluation/ calculation" that 1.2 seems to do the 1st time. I suppose that kind of caught me off guard... |
Hello All,
according to this issue
#988
bit 1.2 seems to run very slow but after testing it today I can not confirm this.
It rather looks like the according fields in the status bar do not get updated or at least not as often as necessary.
I let it run for 30 min and while the status bar told me
0% | Sent: 2.51G | Speed: 1.56 MB/s
the available space on the external HD I was using for backup was reduced by nearly 20GB.
BIT also was doing a complete backup instead of an incremental one and did not seem to recognize or respect my older snapshots.
Regards
Andreas
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: