| > what could be wrong that db backup takes the same amount of time as
| restore,
| > which is almost 3 times slower than ib 6.0.2 classic on the same
| box?
| Looks strange. For me FB1.5 CS on Red Hat is ~1.5 faster on both
| backup and restore than IB6 or FB1 and is ~35min/4hours on 8Gb
| database. Large part of restore time is creation of 2500 indices. Is
| this the same hardware? Can't say what can be wrong with filesystem.
| Perhaps heavy garbaged database? In this case -g option on backup
| should help.

performance of restore was similar to ib6. Backup was several times slower.
It's exactly the same hardware, OS, filesystem, etc. There shouldn't be much
garbage in database because it was restored pretty recently

today I played a little more and found that it's remote connection that
slows things down. Without specifying hostname in connection string the
performance was similar to ib6. CPU utilization was ~60%. With a host name
in connection string CPU utilization was only ~10% (and backup took almost
three times longer as I noted earlier). Everything was done on the same box
so it's not network traffic

usually we run gbak on server, so it works for us. Just out of curiosity it
would be good to know why local vs remote connection makes so big
difference...