Hi,
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011, Annette Jaekel wrote:
> Thats amazing, because I searched for reasons of bad performance in the
> last days both for backup (18 hours for a full of 300 GB with 5 million
> files)
It seems unlikely that adding an index would noticeably improve backup
performance, as that
Thats amazing, because I searched for reasons of bad performance in the last
days both for backup (18 hours for a full of 300 GB with 5 million files) and
in restores (building the corresponding file tree from my postgres database
take more than 10 minutes). One of the first hint I found was to
Hi,
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011, Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> It looks to me like I should remove the indexes "PathId" and "FilenameID",
> leaving the PRIMARY, JobId and jobid_index. Does that seem correct?
Oooh. I think I'm close to shouting Eureka. Having dropped those indexes
(indices?), the same rest
Hi,
I've reported before that we've had very slow restores, due to the time taken
to build the file tree for the console -- which is about 20+ minutes.
http://adsm.org//lists/html/Bacula-users/2010-11/msg0.html
I've been looking at this again, particularly at a bug that had some
interesting
