Re: [Duplicity-talk] duplicity 0.7 slowness

[covici]

edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 29.07.2016 15:31, address@hidden wrote:
> > edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 29.07.2016 00:25, address@hidden wrote:
> >>> edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 25.07.2016 13:02, Philip Jocks via Duplicity-talk wrote:
> >>>>> Hej Aaron,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 25.07.2016 um 12:46 schrieb Aaron <address@hidden>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Philip,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2016-07-25 10:56, Philip Jocks wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hej Aaron,
> >>>>>>>>> Given your follow-up email, it would be good to rule out SSH as a 
> >>>>>>>>> cause. Can you please backup to a local folder (e.g. 
> >>>>>>>>> file:///tmp/dup_test) with both and see if there is still the time 
> >>>>>>>>> difference?
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>> The command I run is
> >>>>>>>> duplicity collection-status --archive-dir '/var/.duply-cache' --name 
> >>>>>>>> duply_zzz_local --encrypt-key XXXXXXXX --encrypt-key YYYYYYYY 
> >>>>>>>> --sign-key XXXXXXXX --verbosity '9' --gpg-options 
> >>>>>>>> '--pinentry-mode=loopback --compress-algo=bzip2 
> >>>>>>>> --bzip2-compress-level=9' --full-if-older-than 1W --volsize 200 
> >>>>>>>> 'file:///path/to/zzz_local'
> >>>>>>>> time’s output:
> >>>>>>>> 0.6: 0.41 real         0.28 user         0.03 sys
> >>>>>>>> 0.7: 71.01 real        37.57 user        23.71 sys
> >>>>>>>> It’s a single chain, full backup has 3 volumes, one incremental with 
> >>>>>>>> 1 volume and one incremental with 317 volumes.
> >>>>>>> have you been able to look into this or maybe even reproduce it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apologies, I completely forgot about this -- I'm better with bugs or 
> >>>>>> Launchpad Answers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you please try dropping off all of your additional options and see 
> >>>>>> if the difference persists? I.e., what about:
> >>>>>> duplicity collection-status 'file:///path/to/zzz_local'
> >>>>>> with both versions (or whatever the minimum is that you need to make 
> >>>>>> it run -- I don't use collection-status much)? If that doesn't have 
> >>>>>> the difference, can you please put your options back in one by one to 
> >>>>>> see which looks like it is causing the issue?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks for getting back to me. Haven’t thought about removing options, 
> >>>>> now it’s getting interesting, weirdly. Keeping all options except for 
> >>>>> „—name“ is very fast. Adding „—name duply_zzz_local“ already takes 
> >>>>> several seconds now. So I'd figure, that’s what is at fault?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> does it keep being fast after recreating the archive dir?
> >>>>
> >>>> ..ede/duply.net
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: Aaron reworked file selection lately. another user came up w/ a 
> >>>> patch that accelerates duplicity by magnitudes, maybe you want you try 
> >>>> it? https://code.launchpad.net/~mwilck/duplicity/0.7-series/+merge/301332
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I tried this patch on my  0.7.07.1 version and the patch failed at the
> >>> first two hunks.  Is that the wrong version to test with?
> >>>
> >>
> >> pretty sure it is against the current bazaar tree. how about editing the 
> >> few lines by hand?
> > 
> > Aside from the testing patches which I ommitted, its about 70 lines or
> > so, the first two hunks failed, so its more than just an offset, so I
> > would need some help to make sure I am not doing it incorrectly.
> > 
> 
> 
> up to you, maybe you rather wait for the next release then? .. ede/duply.net

Or, how do I get the current tree?  I have bzr  2.6.0.

Thanks.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         address@hidden