Arno,


Arno Lehmann wrote:
> 
> ...
>> a) result file will be most likely not fragmented on disk at all
> 
> This is most likely in the situation you outline.
> ...
> 
> The most common reasons for slow restores, in my experience, are
> ...
> 

Thanks for quick and useful help.
I meant file access _after_ it is restored, not restore speed. 

I need to do some more tests, but it looks that just
cp /restored/file > /dev/null 
is performed 20% slower speed than copying of other files. 

Doesn't bacula have some "image backup" format, when raw filesystem is
copied and then restored back? (This is only situation I can imagine which
keeps file fragmentation).

Maybe some cache is involved, need to test deeper, just wanted feedback
about possible scenarios.
Thanks again!
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Fragmentation-of-restored-file-tp25868779p25871953.html
Sent from the Bacula - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users