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 local _fast_ disk and transfer that file over > network? > > any explanation would be appreciated:) >
I never used Amanda, on account of the fact that when I looked into it a while back, it was incapable of either spanning backups across multiple tapes, or storing more than one backup job on any given tape (i.e. inflexible to the point of being useless). Bacula has a pretty efficient tape backup design, and its method of backing up to disk is essentially the same, with files taking the place of tapes. Backed up files are stored individually in the volume, whether compressed or not. Restoring them likewise involves seeking to and reading individual backed-up files. When using software compression, the client does the compression work. I don't know off hand who does the decompression work on restore, but I'd bet it's the client. That would mean you'd be transferring one file's worth of compressed data over the network, which would be decompressed by the client - optimal network usage. I've done both massive and tiny restores from disk in Bacula, and it's quite fast in both cases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your company and customers by using code signing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
