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 AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users