Restore methods speed comparison

Hi @Maor_Avni, welcome to the forum :waving_hand:

Yes, the new method is significantly faster, but it looks like we were too conservative in the size of cache and too simple in the ordering strategy. What is happening is that the same files are downloaded multiple times, in an attempt to limit the amount of temporary disk space used.

The effect is that network traffic increases a lot and restore speed slows.

We have another discussion here where @carljohnsen lists some ideas for improvement:

There is also work on a PR that will address the issues: