12.5 TIBX is 3-10 times slower than TIB for high compression
Hi,
as already written in another thread, I started from scratch and set-up everything again. Now I noticed that my backups are damned slow. After some investigation and testing I found that my new backup plans use tibx instead of tib.
So I did a test.
Backup source is a shut down server 2008 vm with a 60GB disk. Backup target is a Synology DS216+II. Backup compression is high, backup format is either 11 or auto (12). Full backup.
TIB | TIBX | |
Backup duration | 6 min | 32 min |
Backup size | 9519MB | 8181MB |
CPU load in agent | 65% | 100% |
Disk read in host | 170K/s | 25K/s |
Network write | 300MBits/s | 50MBit/s |
CPU Load
Network
Now I changed all backup plans back to TIB. And because that's not possible without creating a new plan, you have to export the plan and edit the json file and then import the file again. 12.5 is such a waste of time...
Regards
Martin

- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können

Hi Igor, the size difference between TIB and TIBX is around 10%, not very significant. I will repeat the test with normal compress. Stay tuned.
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können

Test results for normal compression (Note: a second backup from my other host was running to the same target at the same time, so it is a little bit slower than before).
TIB | TIBX | |
Backup duration | 7 min | 5 min |
Backup size | 10.491MB | 8973MB |
CPU load in agent | 25% | 40% |
Disk read in host | 125K/s | 150K/s |
Network write | 300MBits/s | 350MBit/s |
I was previously using high compression because it offered the best overall performance. Seems this is no longer true for TIBX. So it looks like high compression with TIBX is counterproductive.
Note: Processor used in the test is a Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1230 V2 @ 3.30GHz
Regards
Martin
P.S. I've changed the topic title to better reflect the test results.
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können

Thank you Martin,
TibX uses a new compression library ( Zstd ). This usually gives us better performance both in terms of compression and in terms of speed -- you can see that the new compression on "normal" setting results in a smaller file than the previous format on "high". The trade-off is that you can't really compare the levels 1:1 between new and legacy formats.
- Anmelden, um Kommentare verfassen zu können