Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+Performance\s+of\s+NW\s+7\.2\.x\s+on\s+Solaris\s+8\s+or\s+9\s+or\s+10\?\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <john.stoffel AT TAEC.TOSHIBA DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:37:22 -0400
Hi all, We're planning on upgrading an old E450 with Solaris 8 running NW 7.2.x with a new V440, but we're debating which OS to run. Most of our remaining Sun boxes still run Solaris 8, it's been nic
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00038.html (13,577 bytes)

2. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Ben Harner <benjamin.harner AT MARYMOUNT DOT EDU>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:13:49 -0400
Hey John, We currently run Solaris 8 on an Ultra 5. Works great but we only backup maybe 20 servers. The best performance gain would be the NIC. If you can go gig y not right. :) Or you can get on of
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00043.html (15,023 bytes)

3. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Darren Dunham <ddunham AT TAOS DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:15:17 -0700
What's your filer OS? I thought the limit was 1 million files even back on 7.1? Of course even 1M files may not be sufficient for you, but it's a lot better than 10K. -- Darren Dunham ddunham AT tao
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00044.html (14,160 bytes)

4. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Mery <jeff.mery AT NI DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:42:08 -0500
We're running Solaris 9 on V480 (storage node), V440 (server & storage node), and V445 (storage node) with v7.14 of Networker and they scoot along pretty good. We're really looking forward to Solaris
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00045.html (16,455 bytes)

5. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Rick Pim <rick AT POST.QUEENSU DOT CA>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:33:06 -0400
we're starting to work to an upgrade of our ancient networker server. i had planned on going to 7.2.x on a 490 with solaris 10. does the 7.2.x stream not work on solaris 10? rp rick pim rick AT post.
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00047.html (14,838 bytes)

6. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <john.stoffel AT TAEC.TOSHIBA DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:04:24 -0400
We're running 7.0.3P3, but were thinking of going to 7.2.1.1 at some point. indexing (DAR), then you cannot restore more than 10,240 files individually at a time, which is a big hassle. We have file
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00048.html (15,380 bytes)

7. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <john.stoffel AT TAEC.TOSHIBA DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:12:17 -0400
Quick followup, looking at the 7.2.2 Jumbo release notes, it looks like the limit for both DAR and non-DAR backups is 1,000,000 files for a restore, which is a big improvement. Does anyone know what
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00049.html (14,438 bytes)

8. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Mery <jeff.mery AT NI DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:22:15 -0500
Sorry, my mistake - 7.2.x is supported on Solaris 10, but doesn't support ZFS. 7.3.(2?) is the first to support ZFS. We've been jonesing for ZFS, but can't use it until we upgrade Networker. I linked
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00051.html (15,927 bytes)

9. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <john.stoffel AT TAEC.TOSHIBA DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:26:41 -0400
Heh, another quick followup. Look at these bugs still in the 7.3.x release notes. The second one is the killer for me of course. Though maybe if someone can explain a non-DAR index recovery, that wou
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00052.html (14,535 bytes)

10. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Darren Dunham <ddunham AT TAOS DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:30:32 -0700
I don't have a link to the actual guide, but here's one to the rebadged Sun StorEdge Enterprise Backup 7.2. It is similar to my local copy of the release notes for EMC Networker 7.2.1. http://www.su
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00053.html (15,518 bytes)

11. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: backup <backup AT zweistra DOT nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:25:48 +0200
We are currently running Sol 10 with networker 7.2.2 (with /without JUMBO patch) on multiple V440 with Gbit nics on multiple subnets. Basically we have no performance issues currently. We made sure o
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00054.html (16,935 bytes)

12. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: "Coty, Edward" <Edward.Coty AT AIG DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:45:53 -0400
I believe you need Networker 7.3.x with Solaris 10 when using containers or ZFS file systems. EDWARD COTY LEAD STORAGE ENGINEER, LCNA WORK - 973-533-2098 CELL - 973-296-0918 EDWARD.COTY AT AIG DOT CO
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00055.html (17,990 bytes)

13. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: David Magda <dmagda AT EE.RYERSON DOT CA>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:00:45 -0400
Sorry, my mistake - 7.2.x is supported on Solaris 10, but doesn't support ZFS. 7.3.(2?) is the first to support ZFS. We've been jonesing for ZFS, but can't use it until we upgrade Networker. I linked
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00056.html (14,863 bytes)

14. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Peter Viertel <Peter.Viertel AT MACQUARIE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:47:36 +1000
Solaris 8 is too old - sun are ramping down support for it even now. If you're conservative Soalris 9 is no real difference to Sol8 as far as devices and networker are concerned. Sol10 is the one wit
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00057.html (16,427 bytes)

15. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Peter Viertel <Peter.Viertel AT MACQUARIE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:58:07 +1000
There is a hotfix for 7.2.2 to backup ZFS. It may even be rolled into the latest jumbo that came out in Feb. But there's no real problem using the 7.3.2 client with a 7.2.2 server - it seems to work
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00058.html (16,564 bytes)

16. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Siobhán Ellis <siobhanellis AT HOTMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:15:22 +1000
It is not supported to run a newer client than the server, so needs to be 7.3.2 for both, and I'd strongly suggest Jumbo patch 11. Siobhan Siobhán To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT lis
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00059.html (15,690 bytes)

17. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Davina Treiber <DavinaTreiber AT PEEVRO.CO DOT UK>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:59:10 +0100
It is not supported to run a newer client than the server, so needs to be 7.3.2 for both, and I'd strongly suggest Jumbo patch 11. Siobhan Usually this is the case, but as you will know Siobhán ther
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00067.html (15,171 bytes)

18. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Fazil Saiyed <fazil.saiyed AT ANIXTER DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:55:56 -0400
Hello, I am assuming that your enviroment does not have FC capability, in this case using GB direct links with Jumbo Frames is excellent idea. I am not quite familier with NFS method of NDMP however,
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00074.html (13,889 bytes)

19. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: Fazil Saiyed <fazil.saiyed AT ANIXTER DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:06:21 -0400
Hello, Alternatively, you can plan your Netapp enviroments to not have to large of an file system, by planing your volumes with multiple qtree's withen a volume and running seperate backup for each o
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00075.html (13,183 bytes)

20. Re: [Networker] Performance of NW 7.2.x on Solaris 8 or 9 or 10? (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <john.stoffel AT TAEC.TOSHIBA DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:55:30 -0400
We already do this. It helps, but when a single qtree can have over 3,000,000 files, it gets to be a problem. Esp if a user asks us to restore 1.1 million files out of the 3 million files. I worry a
/usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Networker/2007-04/msg00077.html (14,075 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu