>Last week we did a restore of 15 MB and 4000 small html-files. The
>performance was bad, it took 57 minutes to restore the 4000 html-files and
>15 MB.
>
>The back-up is very fast. ... During restore we see no mediawaits, so that's
>not the problem.

Arrgh: No one who posts a question about restoral performance ever includes
the details of the restoral, number of tapes mounted, drive type, etc.
It all makes a big difference.

See "Restoral performance" in http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts
for common factors.  We don't know how you checked for media waits, but
if via Query SEssion, it may be the case that they were not long enough
for the server to mention - but cumulatively it could add up.
Backups are fast if they are streaming, and/or if the drive technology
is excellent at start-stop.  Restorals are fast only if the files being
restored are contiguous - which is rarely the case over time, as
expirations cause spread and repositioning.
Repopulating conventional client directories can also be very painful
in terms of time.  Many small files are the bane of backup-restoral
tasks.

   Richard Sims