OK, at our next restore, I will send an outpu. We have a 300 meg
bandwidth down and up, so that isn't the problem. Possibly the amount
of files is the problem.
Dan Langille wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>
>>
>> Dan Langille wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 3:57 PM,
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>
> Dan Langille wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Langille wrote:
On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Joe Mannuzza w
On Oct 8, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Langille wrote:
On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>
> Has anyone had issues doing a restore of large sets of data via
> bacu
On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Joe Mannuzza wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone had issues doing a restore of large sets of data via
>>> bacula?
>>> Specifically, has anyone also noticed the process taxing the CPU?
>>
>>
>> Can you
Dan,
Thanks for the response. I am unsure at what stage it gets bogged
down. Is there a way to check after the fact? Also, there were many
backups going on at the same time of the failure- around 40. Server
info: 2 Xeon 5150 @2.66 gigs, 3 gigs of RAM.
Thanks,
Joe
Dan Langille wrote:
>
>
