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% /