@gschwepp posted a new topic, subject "First full file backup has a slow transmission rate". It read:

   I just installed urbackupserver (lastest version) on a FreeNAS11 box. The first client I try to backup is a Windows 7 Prof system. They are both in the same local subnet. My backup plan is to save the system disk via image backups and my data disk via file backups. The first image backup worked without any problems. The transmission rate was about 200 Mbit/s.  
    However the transmission rate of the full file backup does not exceed 40 Mbit/s. The settings are pretty much untouched, the transfer mode is ‘hashed'.
    
    Both systems do not show any performance problem, cpu and memory are most idle.
    
    Any ideas/suggestions how I can increase the transmission rate for full file backups?
    
    And a small follow up question: Does the full file backup in a local network environment always transfer all files from the client to the server or are only changed files transfered and the unchanged ‘copied' from the past backup.
    
    Thanks for your help.
    
    Best,  
    gschwepp

@orogor (Pascal Tempier) replied

    Hello
    
    My understanding is that :  
    The speed displayed is often the backup speed (ie, it gets very fast if files do nothave to be actually transferd), and not the network speed.  
    When doing full backups , the all files are re-transferd, (and deduped at destination). when doing inc backups only the missing files are retransfered, and doing hash backup only the missing bits of files are retransfered.

To which @orogor (Pascal Tempier) replied

    About ressource usage, i noticed that urbackup is not very well supporting multicores, ie , you'll rarely see it use more than one core and that may appear as for example 12% cpu usage on an 8 cores computer.

After which, @gschwepp added

    Thank you for the answer.
    
    I would like to increase the backup speed, thats the point. Sorry if I was not precise enough. I know that my network is not the limiting factor here (as full backup was much faster).
    
    I would prefer to back up 1 Tb of data in 12 hours and not in 64-72 hours.
    
    As the client is a _background_ process I didn't expect heavy load on either client or server.

Then @orogor (Pascal Tempier) said

    Well if you r e on windows, there s a few posts about performances on the forums with exact method the changing the thread priority via pstool (not task manager), there s a background option in urbackup too.
    
    But if you re on the tb side, i would suggest you to not worry too much about full performance and do full less often, every 2 weeks or month is enough).  
    Use virtual client (you need to read doc and forums instructions) to not backup everything in one set.  
    Backup files often modified in one virutal client and less often modified in another one.  
    Also please use filters to make sure you dont backup temp folders  
    Easy way is to use verbose at the begin, and look at what s backuped exaclty, then ignore the useless stuff.

After which, @uroni (Martin Raiber) added

    What I do sometimes is disable the on-access virus scanner (at least temporary to see the speed difference). That one can cause a lot of slow down with file backups.


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://forums.urbackup.org/t/first-full-file-backup-has-a-slow-transmission-rate/3974', 'title': 'First full file backup has a slow transmission rate', 'views': 1728, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 516, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 3, 'participant_count': 3, 'posts': 6, 'tags': '', 'author': '@gschwepp', 'participants': '@gschwepp, @orogor (Pascal Tempier), @uroni (Martin Raiber)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2017-08-30T07:45:36.636Z', 'last_posted_at': '2017-09-01T10:27:12.736Z'}