Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity 0.7 slowness

[covici]

edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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?

Aside from the testing patches which I ommitted, its about 70 lines or
so, the first two hunks failed, so its more than just an offset, so I
would need some help to make sure I am not doing it incorrectly.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         address@hidden