That dupe session was duping 200GB using 2 read 2 write 9940B FC 30MBs SAN 
Attached tape dries.  Thank you for letting me that the wording can be 
misleading.

Regards,

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Worman [mailto:rob AT worman DOT org]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:24 PM
To: Hart, Charles
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 4.5 FP3 Vault Question


On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 03:56:29PM -0500 or thereabouts, Hart, Charles wrote:
> I kicked off a Vault Job that is to duplicate images created by a different 
> media manager of a different host.  I setup the vault to use the Master's 
> Media Manager (all media managers are sharing the same robot, in a SSO 
> environment.  My question is that there does not appear to be no activity for 
> the past hour or more.  Looks like it humm'n along then nothing for an 
> hour....
> 
> It's now 3:54PM CT and the detail logs reflect....
> 
  (snip)

> doMonitor(): TCB1:duplicate.log.1_en
> >14:18:44 INF - Beginning duplication on server memstg1 of client 
> >MEMM1BFILE01 image, creating
>  copy 2, destination media id S00439.
> runDups(): duplicate.log.1_en: No activity in 0 minutes
> runDups(): duplicate.log.1_en: No activity in 31 minutes


how big is the image that's being duplicated?
i.e. how long do you expect this duplication to take?

these "No activity in XXX minutes" are a bit misleading in their phrasing.
it's better to treat them as if they said:

  "Waiting for completion of duplication (XXX min. elapsed)"

HTH
rob