Skip to content

Improve efficiency ratio of incremental chain restore #201

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
gsmolk opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Improve efficiency ratio of incremental chain restore #201

gsmolk opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement
Milestone
2.4.0

Comments

@gsmolk
Copy link
Contributor

gsmolk commented May 5, 2020

It would be good to avoid block overwriting when restoring incremental chain.
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 5, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] WIP
46c7f92
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 5, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] fix alignment when skipping block during restore
26a834b
@gsmolk
Copy link
Contributor Author

gsmolk commented May 5, 2020 •
edited
Loading

First results:

INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 5148MB, time elapsed: 42s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 30% (1554MB/5148MB)

vs

INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1554MB, time elapsed: 15s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1554MB/1554MB)

https://gist.github.com/gsmol/1f0e441f6c305b67ea6658217bbca2ec

@gsmolk gsmolk changed the title Improve incremental efficiency ratio Improve incremental restore efficiency ratio May 5, 2020
@gsmolk gsmolk mentioned this issue May 6, 2020
Open
@gsmolk
Copy link
Contributor Author

gsmolk commented May 7, 2020

Some more tests:

1. FULL
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1554MB, time elapsed: 9s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1554MB/1554MB)
2. FULL
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1554MB, time elapsed: 10s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1554MB/1554MB)
3. INCR
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 3525MB, time elapsed: 21s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 44% (1557MB/3525MB)
4. INCR
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 3525MB, time elapsed: 19s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 44% (1557MB/3525MB)

patched:
1. FULL
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1554MB, time elapsed: 9s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1554MB/1554MB)
2. FULL 
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1554MB, time elapsed: 9s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1554MB/1554MB)
3. INCR
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1557MB, time elapsed: 13s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1557MB/1557MB)
4. INCR
INFO: Backup files are restored. Transfered bytes: 1557MB, time elapsed: 11s
INFO: Approximate restore efficiency ratio: 100% (1557MB/1557MB)

@gsmolk gsmolk changed the title Improve incremental restore efficiency ratio Improve efficiency ratio of incremental chain restore May 7, 2020
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 7, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] check fseek return code
b949231
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 8, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] Refactoring of write_backup_filelist()
4f88960
@gsmolk gsmolk added this to the 2.4.0 milestone May 15, 2020
@gsmolk gsmolk mentioned this issue May 21, 2020
Closed
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 22, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] fix restore of files from versions older than 2.3.0
8aa5231
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] use parent link instead of backup list in restore_non_da…
d4a8384 
…ta_file()
gsmolk added a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2020
@gsmolk
[Issue #201] do not employ page bitmap when restoring a single full b…
d67cb67 
…ackup
@gsmolk
Copy link
Contributor Author

gsmolk commented May 25, 2020

Merged

@gsmolk gsmolk closed this as completed May 25, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2.4.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@gsmolk