Re: [Bacula-users] comparison network traffic amanada - bacula @restore

2011-01-20 Thread Chris Hoogendyk
On 1/19/11 8:31 PM, Mike Ruskai wrote: On 1/19/2011 7:47 PM, Juergen Zahrer wrote: Hi list, amanda passes the whole archive to the client even if only a few files are restored. that takes a very very long time for one small file in a big dump over 100 Mb. what about bacula? does bacula

[Bacula-users] comparison network traffic amanada - bacula @restore

2011-01-19 Thread Juergen Zahrer
Hi list, amanda passes the whole archive to the client even if only a few files are restored. that takes a very very long time for one small file in a big dump over 100 Mb. what about bacula? does bacula unpack and extract the requested file on a local _fast_ disk and transfer that file over

Re: [Bacula-users] comparison network traffic amanada - bacula @restore

2011-01-19 Thread Dan Langille
On 1/19/2011 7:47 PM, Juergen Zahrer wrote: Hi list, amanda passes the whole archive to the client even if only a few files are restored. that takes a very very long time for one small file in a big dump over 100 Mb. what about bacula? does bacula unpack and extract the requested file on a

Re: [Bacula-users] comparison network traffic amanada - bacula @restore

2011-01-19 Thread Phil Stracchino
On 01/19/11 20:24, Dan Langille wrote: On 1/19/2011 7:47 PM, Juergen Zahrer wrote: Hi list, amanda passes the whole archive to the client even if only a few files are restored. that takes a very very long time for one small file in a big dump over 100 Mb. what about bacula? does bacula