Catalog Size Quite Large?

[cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95]

Okay, on to the next question: Why does it seem like the catalog files w/ Retrospect 8.x have gotten so ginormous? Of course, each setup's mileage may vary, but one server's folder w/ 3 catalog files is over 60GB...and on a Mac mini w/ a 120GB hard drive, it's starting to look like I may have to add an external drive just to hold the catalogs! Here's a comparison of catalog files for a particular set:

 

Retrospect 6 (largest of 3 redundant sets): 1.9GB

Retrospect 8 (also largest of 3): 28.87GB

 

This is backing up a Mac OS X Server and about 35 clients' user folders daily, and recycling the sets every 12 weeks (but rotating weekly, so they are only in every 3rd week). I may be backing up a tad more now on the Retro 8 server vs. the Retro 6 configuration, but not 10-15x as much! Is anybody else seeing this? Is this a bug or is Retro 8 really storing that much more info about each file (the file's favorite color, who its best friend files are...)?

 

Thx,

Fred

[Lennart_T]

Okay, on to the next question: Why does it seem like the catalog files w/ Retrospect 8.x have gotten so ginormous? Of course, each setup's mileage may vary, but one server's folder w/ 3 catalog files is over 60GB...and on a Mac mini w/ a 120GB hard drive, it's starting to look like I may have to add an external drive just to hold the catalogs! Here's a comparison of catalog files for a particular set:

 

Retrospect 6 (largest of 3 redundant sets): 1.9GB

Retrospect 8 (also largest of 3): 28.87GB

 

This is backing up a Mac OS X Server and about 35 clients' user folders daily, and recycling the sets every 12 weeks (but rotating weekly, so they are only in every 3rd week). I may be backing up a tad more now on the Retro 8 server vs. the Retro 6 configuration, but not 10-15x as much! Is anybody else seeing this? Is this a bug or is Retro 8 really storing that much more info about each file (the file's favorite color, who its best friend files are...)?

 

Thx,

Fred

First of all, without the number of files in each backup set/media set, the comparison is useless.

Second, Retrospect 6 didn't backup ACLs, while Retrospect 8 does. That adds more data for each and every file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control_list

Third, Retrospect 8 can (fully) backup Windows clients.

Fourth, Retrospect 8's catalog files are binary compatible with Retrospect 7.7 on Windows.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Lennart Thelander

[cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95]

First of all, without the number of files in each backup set/media set, the comparison is useless.

 

I disagree. While I agree you cannot do a full A/B comparison, I told you that I'm not backing up 10-15x the amount of data/files (maybe 2x tops), while the catalog file is 10-15x as large. That said, I looked it all up, and here's what we're talking about:

 

R6 Example #1:

Files: 1,085,802

Backups/Sessions: 122

Backup size: 268.9GB

Catalog Size: 1.74GB

Catalog Size/File: 1.68KB/file

 

R6 Example #2:

Files: 1,184,858

Backups/Sessions: 209

Backup size: 307.8GB

Catalog Size: 1.90GB

Catalog Size/File: 1.68KB/file

 

R8 Example #1:

Files: 1,724,808

Backups/Sessions: 463

Backup size: 719.7GB

Catalog Size: 21.88GB

Catalog Size/File: 13.30KB/file

 

R8 Example #2:

Files: 1,640,336

Backups/Sessions: 476

Backup size: 652.1GB

Catalog Size: 28.87GB

Catalog Size/File: 18.45KB/file

 

So, in some cases, over EIGHTEEN KILOBYTES of catalog data PER FILE! That's something like 4-5 typewritten PAGES. Or put another way, I could play TWO HOURS of DV footage and still go through less data than what's required to catalog these 1.6million files. Seems kooky to me.

 

Second, Retrospect 6 didn't backup ACLs, while Retrospect 8 does. That adds more data for each and every file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control_list

 

Sure, that makes sense...and I figured that. But again, 10-15x as much?

 

Third, Retrospect 8 can (fully) backup Windows clients.

Fourth, Retrospect 8's catalog files are binary compatible with Retrospect 7.7 on Windows.

 

What about the Windows catalog files makes them so large, then? Is there something special the Windows version is doing? Again, it staggers me that I may very well have to look at add'l space on an external drive to store catalog files for what I would call a fairly modest workgroup setup.

 

FT

[Lennart_T]

That seems odd.

 

I just checked one of my Retrospect 8 Disk Media Sets:

Catalog file size: 1,093,902,696 bytes

Number of files: 2,141,599

That's about 511 bytes per file.

 

I don't backup any servers, just clients, if that matters. And I don't use ACLs, do you?

 

I have NO idea why your catalog files are so large.

[Guest Steve Maser]

Were your Retrospect 6 catalogs compressed and your Retrospect 8 catalogs *not* compressed?

[Lennart_T]

Were your Retrospect 6 catalogs compressed and your Retrospect 8 catalogs *not* compressed?

I can say that my is not compressed, and at 511 bytes per file is much smaller than Fred's.

[twickland]

The size of the catalog is also going to be dependent on whether or not you have disk grooming enabled, as well as whether you are retaining more snapshots than just the most recent one.

 

That being said, our catalogs are using about 575 B per file for our tape media sets, 625 B per file for a disk media set with no grooming enabled, and 3.2 KB per file for a disk media set with grooming set to retain 10 backups.