Networker

Re: [Networker] netware client perfromance problems

2003-05-30 03:29:41
Subject: Re: [Networker] netware client perfromance problems
From: "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen AT KVAERNER DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 03:29:40 -0400
Tim Mooney wrote:
>There was a thread several months back involving NetWare, where someone
>from Legato support had apparently told someone on the list (I forget who,
>but I could probably dig it up) that part of the problem has to do with
>the number of files that get backed up by a particular instance of a
>client.  I'm still a little vague on what was being said and what the
>limit was as far as # of files, but apparently keeping each instance of
>a client below so many files also will be important for sustained backup
>speed.

They always talk about small MTUs and small files. We have tried the backup
test utility from Novell and it generally had twice the bandwidth of legato
networker. We ran it from another NetWare server.

The main limiting factor with using several simultaneous threads is that
all NetWorker stuff runs on the same CPU. So even if you have a nice fat
NetWare server with heaps of CPUs, everything still runs on CPU 0.

We are moving away from NetWare (unfortunately). If we did not, we would
probably ditch Legato NetWorker for NetWare backup. Possibly alltoghether
because it is very expensive to be a Legato customer. New products like
CommVault Galaxy have NetWare and MS Exchange solutions which are very
attractive to us.

We have (informally) started the process of looking into other backup
products so that we might reduce costs and improve our customer service.

greetings,

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=