Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity 0.7 slowness

[edgar . soldin]

On 29.07.2016 00:25, address@hidden wrote:
> edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 25.07.2016 13:02, Philip Jocks via Duplicity-talk wrote:
>>> Hej Aaron,
>>>
>>>> Am 25.07.2016 um 12:46 schrieb Aaron <address@hidden>:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Philip,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-07-25 10:56, Philip Jocks wrote:
>>>>> Hej Aaron,
>>>>>>> Given your follow-up email, it would be good to rule out SSH as a 
>>>>>>> cause. Can you please backup to a local folder (e.g. 
>>>>>>> file:///tmp/dup_test) with both and see if there is still the time 
>>>>>>> difference?
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> The command I run is
>>>>>> duplicity collection-status --archive-dir '/var/.duply-cache' --name 
>>>>>> duply_zzz_local --encrypt-key XXXXXXXX --encrypt-key YYYYYYYY --sign-key 
>>>>>> XXXXXXXX --verbosity '9' --gpg-options '--pinentry-mode=loopback 
>>>>>> --compress-algo=bzip2 --bzip2-compress-level=9' --full-if-older-than 1W 
>>>>>> --volsize 200 'file:///path/to/zzz_local'
>>>>>> time’s output:
>>>>>> 0.6: 0.41 real         0.28 user         0.03 sys
>>>>>> 0.7: 71.01 real        37.57 user        23.71 sys
>>>>>> It’s a single chain, full backup has 3 volumes, one incremental with 1 
>>>>>> volume and one incremental with 317 volumes.
>>>>> have you been able to look into this or maybe even reproduce it?
>>>>
>>>> Apologies, I completely forgot about this -- I'm better with bugs or 
>>>> Launchpad Answers.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please try dropping off all of your additional options and see if 
>>>> the difference persists? I.e., what about:
>>>> duplicity collection-status 'file:///path/to/zzz_local'
>>>> with both versions (or whatever the minimum is that you need to make it 
>>>> run -- I don't use collection-status much)? If that doesn't have the 
>>>> difference, can you please put your options back in one by one to see 
>>>> which looks like it is causing the issue?
>>>
>>> thanks for getting back to me. Haven’t thought about removing options, now 
>>> it’s getting interesting, weirdly. Keeping all options except for „—name“ 
>>> is very fast. Adding „—name duply_zzz_local“ already takes several seconds 
>>> now. So I'd figure, that’s what is at fault?
>>>
>>
>> does it keep being fast after recreating the archive dir?
>>
>> ..ede/duply.net
>>
>> PS: Aaron reworked file selection lately. another user came up w/ a patch 
>> that accelerates duplicity by magnitudes, maybe you want you try it? 
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~mwilck/duplicity/0.7-series/+merge/301332
>>
> 
> I tried this patch on my  0.7.07.1 version and the patch failed at the
> first two hunks.  Is that the wrong version to test with?
> 

pretty sure it is against the current bazaar tree. how about editing the few 
lines by hand?

..ede/duply.net