Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity 0.7 slowness

[edgar . soldin]

On 29.07.2016 15:46, address@hidden wrote:
> edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 29.07.2016 15:31, address@hidden wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> up to you, maybe you rather wait for the next release then? .. ede/duply.net
> 
> Or, how do I get the current tree?  I have bzr  2.6.0.
> 

try the command featured on top of this page as "Get this branch:"
  https://code.launchpad.net/~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.7-series

..ede