Now I'm backing up 3.3TB of mostly video files (.mkv files mostly), some music (about 200GB) and pictures (probably 50,000 typical photos).
It took about 26 hours
, during which time I could see two 'rsync' processes running top, both using around 20% cpu. I originally had just formatted, as EXT4, then stopped the backup as it was going slowly, and re-formatted NTFS. I could swear it seemed to be going a bit faster after that, but no way to quantify it, i.e. no empirical data.
Now I've set up a file copy using FreeFileSync to a Windows server, using SMB, to copy about 770GB of data from the NAS, again mostly large movie files. This is a Windows 2012 R2 server. It will complete in about 15 mins, so it will have taken about 3 hours 15 mins. The total data being transferred locally was about 3.3TB. Quick and dirty calculation puts the first transfer (local) at 3,300,000 MB / 1560mins = 2.12GB/min (35MB/sec), whilst the second transfer (across the network, gigabit, switched) at 770,000 MB / 195mins = 3.94GB/min (65MB/sec). Doesn't that mean I might have been able to transfer that 3.3TB across the network in 14 hours ? I hope my maths is correct!
My point is 26 hours for 3.3TB is incredibly slow for a local device - it should be faster than the network, shouldn't it ?
My backup job used incremental (archive) set. When I did the 2nd backup I had obviously formatted the drive when I swapped from EXT4 to NTFS format. I noticed a problem there two, but that's another topic !
Did you try U3 port on the back of your nas?
