Re: [Bacula-users] why restore so slow after bscan?

2013-06-25 Thread Jummo
Hello Kern, I have set the Maximum File Size to 10 GByte for my LTO5 drive. According to the documentation [1], every time the Maximum File Size is reach a EOF is written to the tape, the tape will stop. To avoid this, the Maximum File Size should set to a higher value. Until now, I'm fine

Re: [Bacula-users] why restore so slow after bscan?

2013-06-25 Thread Kern Sibbald
Hello Jummo, Yes, writing an EOF on a tape drive will significantly slow it down. I am not sure it actually stops the tape drive. For an LTO-5 I recommend a Maximum File Size of 5G, but I don't see any serious problem with 10G. The downside of a larger Maximum File Size is that it takes longer

Re: [Bacula-users] why restore so slow after bscan?

2013-06-24 Thread Kern Sibbald
Hello James, Normally Bacula imports or creates everything from the bscanned Volume that is needed to do proper restores. It can possibly have problems if your original job spanned two volumes and you only bscanned one. The other problem might be in your bacula-sd.conf file. What value do you

Re: [Bacula-users] why restore so slow after bscan?

2013-06-22 Thread Jummo
Hi James, On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, James Harper wrote: I needed to restore from some old disk media which had long since been purged from the catalog. I bscan'd it back in and started a restore but it's taking _ages_. Normally a restore from disk gets started in seconds and then is basically

[Bacula-users] why restore so slow after bscan?

2013-06-17 Thread James Harper
I needed to restore from some old disk media which had long since been purged from the catalog. I bscan'd it back in and started a restore but it's taking _ages_. Normally a restore from disk gets started in seconds and then is basically limited by network/media speed. This restore seems to