WebFaction
Community site: login faq

Backups, or any disk-intensive operation, makes my dedicated server unresponsive, spending a lot of time in wait state.

I've discussed this with the Webfaction guys in support issues, and they've been very helpful. We've explored running the backup processes at IDLE priority as root, but no improvement.

All we can do is to try to minimize disk access, but we have to do backups.

Purely anecdotally, here's timing for copying the same 15GB file locally on a dreamhost shared server and on a webfaction dedicated server:

user@dreamhost:~$ time cp zeo/var/Data.fs .
real    4m14.274s
user    0m0.192s
sys     0m26.782s
user@webfaction:~$ time cp Data.fs Data.fs.tmp
real    29m45.126s
user    0m2.583s
sys     1m1.838s

The dreamhost machine has 16 x 2.5GHz cores and 16GB RAM. The webfaction machine, 4 x 2GHz and 4GB RAM. I would expect that the filesystem and disk configuration is more relevant though.

On my Thinkpad with some heavy buildouts going on, it takes just 4 minutes longer than on webfaction:

jean@klippie:~$ time cp big.glob big.glob.too 
real    33m37.023s
user    0m1.040s
sys     11m23.115s

Why is it so slow on webfaction? Is it just me keeping the disk too busy? Does anyone else get similar performance?

asked 29 Oct '10, 06:32

Jean Jordaan
431715
accept rate: 33%

edited 29 Oct '10, 06:33

A server with 16 x 2.5GHz cores and 16GB RAM is going to have faster performance than a machine with 4 x 2GHz and 4GB RAM (as long as the first machine isn't under heavy load). It will also depend on the number of processes, and types of processes already running.

If you would like for us to take another look at your server, please open a support ticket and we will be more than happy to assist you.

(29 Oct '10, 08:06) aaronh ♦♦

A server with 16 x 2.5GHz cores and 16GB RAM is going to have faster performance

For cp? Isn't the filesystem and disk configuration more relevant in this case?

I've already opened support tickets about this, and the only conclusion we could come to was that we should try not to access the disk so much. However repozo is always going to be a disk hog. If I have specific questions I need Webfaction to address, I'll open a ticket again.

I'm asking on the community space to see anyone else has similar issues, here or elsewhere, and what they did to cope with it.

permanent link

answered 31 Oct '10, 23:42

Jean Jordaan
431715
accept rate: 33%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×7
×6

question asked: 29 Oct '10, 06:32

question was seen: 2,201 times

last updated: 31 Oct '10, 23:42

                              
WEBFACTION
REACH US
SUPPORT
LEGAL
© COPYRIGHT 2003-2021 SWARMA LIMITED - WEBFACTION IS A SERVICE OF SWARMA LIMITED
REGISTERED IN ENGLAND AND WALES 5729350 - VAT REGISTRATION NUMBER 877397162
5TH FLOOR, THE OLD VINYL FACTORY, HAYES, UB3 1HA, UNITED KINGDOM