Hi, I think that's an issue for just about any program that moves files around. For the same volume of data, the overhead (amount of work) required for asking the OS to open a file, and afterwards to close it, for the filesystem to find out the physical addresses of the pieces of that file, etc. adds up more quickly in the case where there are lots of small files, which means that that much less time can be used to work on the actual transfer of data.
I don't think there's anything you can do about it. An obvious workaround, in certain situations, is to group all your files into archives (.tar, .zip...). Of course, that's a valid solution only if your files don't have to be accessed by applications, and you or your users don't mind the loss of comfort that implies when working with these files. Lucas Cohen > -----Message d'origine----- > Envoyé : jeudi 23 août 2007 12:54 > > Have bacula less performance with small files? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
