Hi,
we're using ISP 8.1.1 server on Linux.
I have two clients that backup multiple filesystems every night. The clients have a resourceutilization of 8, and start multiple sessions in parallel. The info, that the clients report in their dsmsched.log differs from what the server reports in its Summary table.
Client A starts 7 sessions. This is what dsmsched.log reports:
04/11/2018 19:36:47 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT BEGIN SCLOUD 04/11/2018 18:07:00
04/12/2018 00:11:13 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS BEGIN
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Total number of objects backed up: 165,866
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Total number of bytes transferred: 161.60 GB
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Elapsed processing time: 04:34:26
And this is what the server stores in the Summary table:
START_TIME: 2018-04-11 19:36:46
END_TIME: 2018-04-11 19:42:03
AFFECTED: 31
BYTES: 173449383789
So, the number of bytes is correct, but the number of files is way too low and the end_time is too early. The same happens with the other client that also start sessions in parallel.
Is this a known problem?
Regards,
Dirk
we're using ISP 8.1.1 server on Linux.
I have two clients that backup multiple filesystems every night. The clients have a resourceutilization of 8, and start multiple sessions in parallel. The info, that the clients report in their dsmsched.log differs from what the server reports in its Summary table.
Client A starts 7 sessions. This is what dsmsched.log reports:
04/11/2018 19:36:47 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT BEGIN SCLOUD 04/11/2018 18:07:00
04/12/2018 00:11:13 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS BEGIN
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Total number of objects backed up: 165,866
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Total number of bytes transferred: 161.60 GB
04/12/2018 00:11:13 Elapsed processing time: 04:34:26
And this is what the server stores in the Summary table:
START_TIME: 2018-04-11 19:36:46
END_TIME: 2018-04-11 19:42:03
AFFECTED: 31
BYTES: 173449383789
So, the number of bytes is correct, but the number of files is way too low and the end_time is too early. The same happens with the other client that also start sessions in parallel.
Is this a known problem?
Regards,
Dirk