Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!csnet-relay.arpa!jl%dac.triumf.cdn%ubc.CSNET
From: jl%dac.triumf.cdn%ubc.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (John Lloyd)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: Re: creating volume sets
Message-ID: <52:jl@dac.triumf.cdn>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 16:54:23 EST
Article-I.D.: dac.52:jl
Posted: Mon Mar 10 16:54:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 06:33:26 EST
References: <860304162431.700172@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

Ahh you were caught by the Backup non-Image performance crunch.  Backing
up disks /IMAGE is considerably faster than /NOIMAGE, because Backup goes
by the Index file rather than the directory structure.  Your restore took
so long because you chose the wrong method:

1) Back /image /noinit tape: disk1:,disk2:,disk3:,...

would have been faster than your

2) Back /noimage tape:[*...] disk1:[*...],disk2:,disk3:,...

which requires many references and re-references to the index file and
various and sundry directories each file creation.  Note that method (1)
requires disk1:... to be mounted /Foreign, thus Backup keeps the directories
and allocations problem to itself; while (2) requires the XQP to do the
work, and of course XQP is not optimized for file restores from Backup.

Live and learn.  I haven't decided myself if a disk copy (RM05 to RA81) is
faster to use /Image backups to tape and back to disk, or if I should just
wait for the Backup RM05:[*...] RA81:[*...] to wind its way through the mud.