Re: [Bacula-users] volume/file size and speed

2010-05-11 Thread John Drescher
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Joseph Spenner joseph85...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm currently set up with a File based backup system (no tapes).  Initially I wanted to make 1TB files, but learned (and read) that recovery of a backup is very slow with large files.  So, I reconfigured it to

Re: [Bacula-users] volume/file size and speed

2010-05-11 Thread Joseph Spenner
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, John Drescher dresche...@gmail.com wrote: 3) If I use bconsole I can specify a single file to recover and it is VERY fast.  But there doesn't seem to be a way to specify an entire directory.  Or am I not looking in the right place? You run restore and mark the

Re: [Bacula-users] volume/file size and speed

2010-05-11 Thread John Drescher
Right, but in order to do this, I first must let bat (I think?) load the WHOLE index before I get a list of what is possible to select.  This is what appears to take hours.  Or is this possible faster in bconsole? I do not really use bat, nor have I restored anything from any version of

Re: [Bacula-users] volume/file size and speed

2010-05-11 Thread Joseph Spenner
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, John Drescher dresche...@gmail.com wrote: I first must let bat (I think?) load the WHOLE index before I get a list of what is possible to select.  This is what appears to take hours.  Or is this possible faster in bconsole? I do not really use bat, nor have I

Re: [Bacula-users] volume/file size and speed

2010-05-11 Thread Richard Scobie
Joseph Spenner wrote: Ok, I just used bconsole and recovered a directory in little time at all. So, bat is the problem. I can use bconsole instead. I might try to go back to using 1TB files and see how it performs as well. Thanks for the tip! I can confirm this and will post more fully