Maybe I wasn't clear: the server has an OS disk (nvme) and a HDD for backups. The mount I showed is the HDD disk mount. It was just to check if any filesystem mount options were needed to improve performance.

Thank you all.

One thing though, if you have very precious data there, it is maybe not best advised to keep the live and backup data in the same physical location (which I presume it is, given a local mountpoint)

EXT4 and XFS are basically treated the same way from Cloudron side, so there is no difference in that aspect.

Just to be on the same page, you are still using the same configs sshfs (rsync with hardlinks) as before but only the remote is now not hetzner storage box anymore, but your own server with some disks mounted?

If this is the case, then there is no difference at all from a Cloudron perspective. Maybe the disk I/O is just not as fast in your setup as with hetzner?

Hi, @nebulon . Thank you for your time.
Yes, the config is the same, except now backups are being sent to my server. It has a NVME boot disk and an HDD storage disk, for Cloudron backups.
The first backup, 764GB, takes a few hours, just like hetzner storagebox. Disk I/O is (at least) good enough, I manage to do 500Mbps, easy. With lots of small files, it's less, off course.

What differs are the next backups, where (almost) no data is transferred, only hard links are "updated". It takes around 4h to do this. I tested with a XFS mounted partition and now I'm testing with an EXT4. I think this one will handle this operation a bit better. Let's see.

Partition is mount like this: UUID=xxxxxxxxxx /mnt/backups ext4 defaults,noatime,nodiratime,data=ordered,commit=15 0 2

Any tips to make it better?

Thanks

Just to be on the same page, you are still using the same configs sshfs (rsync with hardlinks) as before but only the remote is now not hetzner storage box anymore, but your own server with some disks mounted?

If this is the case, then there is no difference at all from a Cloudron perspective. Maybe the disk I/O is just not as fast in your setup as with hetzner?

Because of a fix @girish implement that runs some opperataions directly via. ssh in the storage-box instead of over fuse sshfs > network > mount yada yada.

Thanks.
@girish Could this fix be used in my use case?

--

Since yesterday, I'm testing backups with a XFS partition.
I think something's different, compared to EXT4.
On EXT4, after the first backup almost no data was transferred. It was just a matter of "taking care of the" hardlinks, although it took a few hours.
On XFS, if I'm seeing it right, hardlinks on the snapshot folder where deleted, and now data is being transferred again from the Cloudron server.

Can this be related to the filesystem?
Or maybe the way the partition is mounted?

Thanks for your help.

PS: this is not a problem to me, things are working just fine. I'm just trying to understand, so I can optimize it, if possible.

with 100 concurrent connections

Keep in mind https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box/

Concurrent connections 10

@pitadavespa said in optimizing VPS for backups:

On Hetzner Storagebox this was way faster, just a few minutes.

Because of a fix @girish implement that runs some opperataions directly via. ssh in the storage-box instead of over fuse sshfs > network > mount yada yada.

I think all this time is just to delete and add hardlinks. Is there any way I can optimize it? Maybe on the server side?
On Hetzner Storagebox this was way faster, just a few minutes.

Many thanks to you all.

Since the backup started (the first one), around 7h ago or so, it copied 675GB, but now it's doing "something" that takes forever. iftop shows around 80Kbps data transfer from the source server.
I'm not sure how much more time it will take.

opens this: