Paul,

Appreciate you asking the question, course would appreciate you going to
every user group meeting on planet earth and asking the question in public
(but that is me)...

<Danger-Danger> If you tell them you want it, if a lot of people tell them
they want it... We may have to pay extra for it the first couple of years to
pay for research blah-blah-blah, programmer doin' his stinkin job,
blah-blah-blah...

As far as you putting in a ticket with EMC and asking them "why...", the
ticket system is a break/fix tool, not a future feature tool.

That's what Louisville Sluggers and "Bobby-Broken Nose Scappolini" is for...
<Grin>

Note: "No mob members were hired, trees cut down, nor Little League batting
coaches were harmed in the making of this endorsement for multi-processor
programming."

This has been NtwrkrSerf Endorsement... All copyrights are the property of
their owners.. Don't drink and drive, not even soda!

Sorry for being away from the list so long... I am taking some bereavement
leave and need to unwind.. You guys are my "blanky" yeah run and hide from
that vision if you can!

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Goslin, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:19 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Cloning parallelism


Here Here !

I'm glad to see we are not the only ones who have noticed this lack of
multi-processor support. It's like having a HUMMER with an V8, but only 3
spark plugs, looks impressive , but don't expect it use all the power that's
available to it... Or accomplish as much as it could...

We've asked EMC about this, and the only suggestion they made was "try
increasing the server parallelism", which has made no measurable difference
that we can see. Then they closed the case without our consent without
answering our initial question: Why doesn't networker utilize multiple
processors ????

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion
> [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On Behalf Of EAlbert
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:58 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Networker] Cloning parallelism
> 
> A better question for improving throughput "might be" can EMC
> kick their programmers in the tush and get them to use more 
> than one processor!??
> 
> You pay big bucks for a Quad-Processor + the RAM to make it
> efficient you make sure each processor has the fastest 
> ram-cache available and then we buy software that only uses 
> ONE PROCESSOR!?!
> 
> With compression, thousands of clients and encryption, the
> use of multiple processors would be more than convenient.
> 
> This in my humble opinion... /ALE
> 
> P. S. Congo-Rats on the LTO4! Let us know if it is worth the
> upgrade, right now it does not appear to make sense to buy it.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion
> [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On Behalf Of Tim Verbois
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:44 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: [Networker] Cloning parallelism
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Environment:
> 
> VTL
> L700 (LTO3 + LTO2 drives)
> Legato 7.3.2 from SUN
> Server + storage node
> 
> is it possible to have the parallelism on a cloning set to 2?
>  I changed the setting in the java interface, but it doesn't 
> change a thing.
> 
> Why do I want to do that?  We clone from VTL to L700 LTO3
> tape drives.  
> The speed of an LTO3 drive is 70 MB/s native and can reach 
> 100 MB when compressed.  Our VTL can supply data at a speed 
> of 70 MB/s.  A client can do a restore at max 50 MB/s.  So 
> while we clone at a speed of 70 MB/s compressable data, we 
> lose at least 20 MB/s average speed for cloning.  For 
> restores, our tape is to fast, we would be satisfied with an 
> everage restore speed of 40MB/s. 
> 
> The problem we have is that we need the top speed for cloning
> because of the small time window for cloning (backupping 
> every day and the full weekend, needs cloning at top speeds 
> during all the free time). 
> 
> In a few weeks we start using LTO4, this is going to make the
> loss of speed even bigger, much bigger.  Can this be solved?
> 
> --
> Tim Verbois
> Unix Team
> EDS-Telindus
> 02/553.71.73
> 
> To sign off this list, send email to
> listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type "signoff networker" in 
> the body of the email. Please write to 
> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any 
> problems with this list. You can access the archives at 
> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or via RSS 
> at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
> 

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER