Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+7\.2\s+upgrades\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Networker\]\s+7\.2\s+upgrades\.\.\.\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Eugene Vilensky <evilensky AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:16:34 -0600; Hi, So what's the latest word on upgrades from 7.2? Is 7.6 a viable option or is 7.4/7.5 more "fully cooked"? We're not really looking for features so much as support for the latest client platforms; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00072.html (10,268 bytes)
2. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:51:13 -0500; At this very moment 7.5sp2 has the most current OS support (It's the first one out the door that supports Windows 2008 R2). 7.6sp1 should be along in a little bit, and it too will support Windows 200; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00076.html (11,002 bytes)
3. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Mark Leese <mark.r.leese AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:33:09 +0000; support 2008 R2. At the mo I would agree with the above.. Anything between 7.3 and 7.5.0 is worth skipping, with 7.5.1 some good (stable) features were added. 7.5.2 should bring in more stability - h; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00080.html (11,516 bytes)
4. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: "Browning, David" <DBrown AT LSUHSC DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:19:07 -0600; I have to agree. 7.4.1 was extremely painful - took months to get fixed. Once 7.4.5.x came out, that's been pretty stable. Upgraded a couple of weeks ago to 7.5.1.8, and that's been fairly stable. Ma; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00081.html (13,069 bytes)
5. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney AT NDSU DOT EDU>; Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:35:42 -0600; In regard to: Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades..., Browning, David said (at...: I have to agree. 7.4.1 was extremely painful - took months to get fixed. Once 7.4.5.x came out, that's been pretty stable.; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00083.html (11,921 bytes)
6. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Yaron Zabary <yaron AT ARISTO.TAU.AC DOT IL>; Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:11:34 +0200; So what's the latest word on upgrades from 7.2? Is 7.6 a viable option or is 7.4/7.5 more "fully cooked"? We're not really looking for features so much as support for the latest client platforms and; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00094.html (12,453 bytes)
7. [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: tkimball <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:55:51 -0500; We went from 7.1.3 + AlphaStor to 7.4.4 and no AlphaStor *cheer*. The version choice was made over a year ago, based on Stan's experience with it on Sun hardware. I've been overall pleased with the n; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00115.html (12,564 bytes)
8. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Preston de Guise <enterprise.backup AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:58:59 +1100; Hi Tim, You know you can run a 7.6 NMC server against a 7.4.x NetWorker server? We have customers doing this already. Cheers, Preston. -- Preston de Guise http://nsrd.info/blog NetWorker Blog http://; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00116.html (11,637 bytes)
9. [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: tkimball <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:21:52 -0500; Yep, I know. NMC Server is on one of our monitoring systems, rather than the NW server, so I'm prepared to do the upgrade. As I said, it was bad timing. 7.6 came out literally days before I had the O; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00117.html (11,294 bytes)
10. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Francis Swasey <Frank.Swasey AT UVM DOT EDU>; Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:43:53 -0500; I am running NMC 7.6 and my NetWorker server is 7.4.5 -- In the monitoring window, the sessions pane will often get confused about whether a particular session is a save job or a clone job -- So, the; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00118.html (12,080 bytes)
11. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Yaron Zabary <yaron AT ARISTO.TAU.AC DOT IL>; Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:50:10 +0200; I've been overall pleased with the new version, in particular how much easier library management is (compared to AlphaStor anyway). I'm still poking and prodding at the GUI to see how far I can take; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00142.html (14,871 bytes)
12. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Anacreo <anacreo AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:16:42 -0600; Yaron, What version of Solaris are you running on the Thumper, update 8 is significantly faster than say update 3? Do you have any SSD's in the thunper to handle L2ARC? What kind of performance are y; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00143.html (16,491 bytes)
13. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Yaron Zabary <yaron AT ARISTO.TAU.AC DOT IL>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:30:37 +0200; The Thumper is U8 with recommended patches from November 2009 (kernel is Generic_141445-09). Do you have any SSD's in the thunper to handle L2ARC? No. What kind of performance are you getting? As I s; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00144.html (18,058 bytes)
14. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Anacreo <anacreo AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:46:58 -0500; Ok so how are you accessing the Thumper as an adv_file over NFS or as an iSCSI LUN? Have you been able to clock your read speed off of the Thumper through to the T1000? If you can write through at 10; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00145.html (19,751 bytes)
15. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Anacreo <anacreo AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:54:49 -0500; In either case please read below, I've seen the effects of this first hand and it is easy to see if its causing your performance degradation: Tuning ZFS Checksums End-to-end checksumming is one of th; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00146.html (22,681 bytes)
16. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Yaron Zabary <yaron AT ARISTO.TAU.AC DOT IL>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:48:27 +0200; That's typical I/O on the Thumper (the scrub finished). capacity operations bandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- -- -- -- -- -- -- pool 22.1T 18.8T 3.32K 212 413M 25.1M pool 22.1T 18.8T; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00147.html (21,272 bytes)
17. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Yaron Zabary <yaron AT ARISTO.TAU.AC DOT IL>; Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:59:08 +0200; The single thread issue was supposed to be fixed with U6 (I am at U8), so I hope this is not the problem. Anyhow, I don't have problems getting at 100MBps when writing, so I guess I should be OK with; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00148.html (21,744 bytes)
18. Re: [Networker] 7.2 upgrades... (score: 1): Author: Anacreo <anacreo AT GMAIL DOT COM>; Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:20:17 -0500; Hmm.. your situation has some uniqueness to it.. I'd keep harping on isolating each components... I'm curious what your total throughput is between your two servers, have you tried just simply doing; /lists/html/Networker/2010-03/msg00150.html (27,790 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]