ADSM-L

Re: GUI speed versus command line

1998-06-10 15:00:00
Subject: Re: GUI speed versus command line
From: "Ludwig, Don" <Don.Ludwig AT CCMAIL.FINGERHUT DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:00:00 -0500
     We have Version 3 running on some of our NT clients and have
     noticed that performance with the GUI or command line is poor.  We
     had a user that needed a file restored the filespace had 600,000+
     files. (According to the query occupancy command)  It took over 4.5

     hours just to bring up the list of files!!!  Were hoping that when
     we go to V3 server that there will be some improvement.

     We know that 600,000 files is alot but with the size of disk drives

     now available it shouldn't be that uncommon.  We have several
     filespaces that have 500,000+ files.

     Has anyone else seen this type of performance?  Any
     recommendations?

     Any help or response would be appreciated.  BTW Apar IC20215 was
     opened concerning this.

     Thanks
     Don Ludwig


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: GUI speed versus command line
Author:  Weeks, Debbie [SMTP:debbie AT ADMIN.USF DOT EDU]  at INTPO
Date:    6/10/98 1:20 PM


I've run restores from the GUI and command line on our NT servers, and
haven't noticed any difference in performance with Version 3.  In
Version 2 there was some trouble, especially with selecting inactive
versions of files to restore.  It could take hours just to make the
selection through the GUI, but one easy command from the command line.
With version 3 this is no longer a problem.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Connor [SMTP:connorj AT NIMO DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 1:47 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      GUI speed versus command line
>
> I recall it being mentioned on this listserv that restores using the
> GUI
> client generally run slower than restores initiated from the command
> line.
> Does anyone know if this is this true and if so what is the cause of
> the
> overhead?  Got some users who are objecting to using the command line
> even
> if it performs better.. Thanks
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>