On 07/06/2012 09:20 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Todd And Margo Chester
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2012 04:03 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Phong X Nguyen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6 Jul 2012, at 1516, Todd And Margo Chester wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On my VM, W7 is still half as fast as XP and ten times less
>>>>> stable -- pretty much matches what I see in the field.
>>>>> And Lotus Approach, which I use for my business accounting,
>>>>> runs worse on W7 than it runs on Wine.
>>>>>
>>>> Can I get more details about your issues? I routinely run Windows 7 in
>>>> VMs (generally VMWare) and get near-native speed for anything except
>>>> GPU-bound tasks. It's also rock-solid stable. So I'm curious about your
>>>> problems you mention you keep having.
>>>>
>>>> My general experience (for a fairly broad spectrum of users) is for most
>>>> relatively-recent hardware (e.g. >2GB RAM, half-decent IGP, etc.) Windows 7
>>>> is as-fast, faster and a lot more productive than XP (the last due to
>>>> general UI improvements).
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget that Todd is using "dump" and "restore" for backup. I
>>> find them.... grossly inefficient, and rely on separate cheap media
>>> with "rsync" and "rsnapshot" for much faster, more efficient backups
>>> and recommend them highly. If you need to preserve SELinux data,
>>> Amanda or Zmanda with "star" also works well, and again, is much more
>>> efficient than dump and restore.
>>>
>>
>>
>> $ df /dev/sda1
>> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
>> /dev/sda1               495844    134640    335604  29% /boot
>>
>> I backup the above in 1 hr, 12 min.  How are your numbers?
>
> This is over what, DSL to a remote server? That's only 31 KBytes per
> second! The only thing I do that's comparable right now is rsync the
> SL 6.x repostories to an internal mirror (for use by "mock" package
> building). Takes a minute or two to verify 20 Gig of local material,
> then it's bandwidth limited by my local ISP to roughly 200
> KBytes/second for files that have changed.
>
> tar and star for Amanda based backup to tape is mostly limited by
> network, or hard drive, bandwidth. I thought you were running into
> hard drive limites. 31 KBytes/second indicates something else is going
> on. Is your XP host infected and spewing spam or malware, eating your
> network bandwidth? Can you put a network monitor in place and look?
>
> For rsync based systems,
>

Ooops.  Gave you the wrong partition.  Should have been:

$ df
Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/luks-xx  946513204 286868552 611564524  32% /