ADSM-L

Re: Multiple backup sessions on one machine

1997-04-11 12:11:39
Subject: Re: Multiple backup sessions on one machine
From: "Pittson, Timothy ,HiServ/US" <tpittson AT HIMAIL.HCC DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:11:39 -0400
Peter,
        In order to have ADSM control kicking off multiple sessions, you would
need multiple client/node names.  However, if you want to control it
from the client, you can do it using the same client name.

For instance, from an HPUX client, you could set up 3 separate cron jobs
to start 3 incrementals simultaneously...

session 1 - load dsmc incremental /

session 2 - load dsmc incremental /u01

session 3 - load dsmc incremental /u02

If you look back thru old postings for ADSM-L,  Dwight Cook has posted
quite a few good ideas for kicking off multiple concurrent sessions ,
especially for the Netware environment.

Tim Pittson
tpittson AT himail.hcc DOT com

>----------
>From:  Peter Carranti[SMTP:carrantip AT NIMO DOT COM]
>Sent:  Friday, April 11, 1997 10:58 AM
>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:       Multiple backup sessions on one machine
>
>Has anyone experimented with and/or perfected running concurrent backups on
>one
>client machine, specifically AIX, HPUX, Netware, and WIN/NT clients?
>
>We are trying to reduce our backup times on the above platforms and are
>hoping
>that "splitting" a machine into multiple concurrent backups might help.  But
>we
>are not sure how to go about doing so, and cannot find specifics in any
>manual.  If there's documentation out there that explains this, I'd gladly
>RTM.
>
>Do we need to create multiple nodes on each machine pointing to different
>dsmc.exe, domains and dsm.opt, dsm.sys files in order to schedule concurrent
>backups?  Has anyone tried this and gotten any benefit from it?  Or is it not
>worth the trouble.
>
>I apologize if this has been covered in detail here previously, but I don't
>recall seeing it.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Peter Carranti
>Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
>Syracuse, New York
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>