Skip to content
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.

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

Default vs "best" settings #17

Open
basldfalksjdf opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Default vs "best" settings #17

basldfalksjdf opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
next something we should try

Comments

@basldfalksjdf
Copy link
Contributor

Just throwing an idea out there, not sure how viable this is. Is it worth running the benchmarks two ways: (1) using default settings and (2) using settings optimized for this workload?

I ask because almost all these software have tweaks that can improve performance in certain aspects. For example, with Kopia you can use smaller chunks to enhance deduplication and thus reduce backup repository size. Kopia uses 4M chunks by default, because this is most efficient when the number of files gets large. But in a scenario where there are fewer files, changing it to 1M chunks may reduce in smaller backup repository size. I am sure the other programs have similar settings that can be tweaked.

@deajan
Copy link
Owner

deajan commented Sep 7, 2022

The idea ain't bad, but there are already some choices made.

I think I'll just optimize the backup arguments until I can squeeze the most out of each program, which I will also document.
Once I'm done with that, I may redo a vanilla benchmark for comparaison.

@deajan deajan added the next something we should try label Sep 7, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
next something we should try
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants