Hello,

I have noticed that the schedule_name field in the summary table does not
always have an entry in it. I think I've narrowed this down to the fact that
3.1 clients fill this in and 3.7 and 4.1 clients leave it blank. This would
seem to be caused by the RESOURceutilization parameter causing sub-sessions
to update the summary table without a schedule_name, while the main thread,
which no longer transmits the backup data, doesn't update the table.
Is this correct? If so it would seem that the schedule_name field is no
longer relevant unless RESOURceutilization is 1.

I also have some NT clients who make two entries in the summary table for
one backup. This is caused by the fact that a session is started for c$,
this just saves a few files, then it carries on searching through the e$
partition this goes on for over half an hour before it finds any data to
send to the server and so the original session gets an idle timeout. As soon
as data is found that has changed a new session is started and a new entry
in the summary table is created upon it's completion. The first record in
the summary table has successful=no and the second successful=yes. This is
not really desirable behaviour. It is however documented in the client book
under the resourceutilization parameter:
"The client could produce multiple accounting records."
Just thought I'd share my observations on this as it messes up our
statistics gathering and may affect yours.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen - With best regards
Serdeczne pozdrowienia - Slan agus beannacht
Paul Baines
TSM/ADSM Consultant