From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E6470C6D
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:33:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1772620A33
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:33:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A719220A25
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:33:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E4DF44C39;
 Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:24:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d792b3ef-7e4b-4c7b-d8ab-7e7473c3f918@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:24:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:93.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/93.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Gregor Burck <gregor@aeppelbroe.de>
References: <20210917112921.EGroupware.VUEdiWgpWw30Fp0tioEjJWr@heim.aeppelbroe.de>
 <20210930150725.EGroupware.6J5OaeEYpIws136ZihOWnZX@heim.aeppelbroe.de>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210930150725.EGroupware.6J5OaeEYpIws136ZihOWnZX@heim.aeppelbroe.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.856 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -3.03 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] proxmox-restore - performance issues
X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:33:31 -0000

On 9/30/21 15:07, Gregor Burck wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I made some other test with the same machine but an other proccessor.
> 
> I use an Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 v3 @ 3.40GHz, wich has a higher 
> frequency.
> 
> The restore rate for an single job dind't change.
> 
> Any idea what it could be?
> 
> Bye
> 
> Gregor
> 
> 

hi,

can you tell us a bit more about the setup and test?
is the target storage able to handle more than 50MB/s?
how do you measure the 50MB/s?

with kind regards
Dominik