Le 2013-01-14 14:32, Uwe Schuerkamp a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0500, John Drescher wrote: >> > I just ran into this. After a Google search, I turned up an >> article that >> > says the indices that used to make Bacula run faster now cause a >> performance >> > problem with recent versions of Bacula and recent versions of >> MySQL (it's on >> > the Bacula wiki, the address for which I don't have handy). I >> removed all of >> > the indices I had on the file table and restores only take a few >> minutes >> > now. >> >> Even though you have a tiny database I would still look into tuning >> your mysql settings. A lot of distributions ship with a ridiculous >> default configuration that assumes your PC has 64MB of ram or >> similar. >> >> John >> > > I'd like to have the above point clarified by the people in the know: > Are File table indices recommended with bacula versions > 5.0 or > not? > Can the original poster provide a link to the article mentioned > above? > > Thanks, Uwe > > -- > NIONEX --- Ein Unternehmen der Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA
Hello, Did you have a look on that? http://wiki.bacula.org/doku.php?id=faq#restore_takes_a_long_time_to_retrieve_sql_results_from_catalog dbcheck creates 2 indexes. If interrupted, these two indexes can have a very big impact on times to perform actions related to these tables (backup AND restores) Your catalog is quite small, anyway, did you schedule to run a dbckeck periodically? Best regards. Jerome Blion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
