Enabling both stream_buffer and stream_buffer_remote

[Massimo-B]

trafficstars

Beside any recommendation for or against mbuffer (you said it's another point of failure), is it recommended to have both stream_buffer and stream_buffer_remote when using volume ssh://...?

On --progress -v I see

in @ 8183 kiB/s, out @ 8183 kiB/s, 33.2 GiB total, buffer 100% fulll

which I guess is the local mbuffer output from option stream_buffer. Is it possible to also show the remote buffer status?

When comparing all the stream_buffer* and stream_compress, how do you compare the throughput? As the mbuffer rate is very jumpy. The only real comparison I guess would be the total time for a complete transfer.

[digint]

Beside any recommendation for or against mbuffer (you said it's another point of failure), is it recommended to have both stream_buffer and stream_buffer_remote when using volume ssh://...?

Added some text in: d874a7789ac7137109688c60fb79cad12bbf4849 documentation: btrbk.conf.5: explain stream_buffer_remote

tl;dr it depends on many factors

Is it possible to also show the remote buffer status?

Not directly. I think its possible to define a logfile in ~/.mbuffer.rc, see mbuffer(1).

When comparing all the stream_buffer* and stream_compress, how do you compare the throughput? As the mbuffer rate is very jumpy. The only real comparison I guess would be the total time for a complete transfer.

Yes, sadly it is very jumpy some times... note that mbuffer also prints some useful stats after a transfer (with --progress)