Barbara - Your comparative trace statistics are interesting.  That was a
          good move in doing a Selective and an Incremental, which will
help illuminate performance problems per the differences.
    The client trace facility is formally intended for service representatives
and so the manual does not describe output, unfortunately.  (Might a *SM
developer post a public URL where we might obtain such supplementary info?)
In any case, we have the comparison.
    A Selective backup is "backup regardless", and so does not have to
compare against anything from the server database (not even last backup
date, like -Incrbydate does), and so should be much faster than an
ordinary Incremental - and it was much faster.  The large "Transaction"
time in the ordinary Incremental I believe reflects interaction with the
server to construct a table of file system objects within the client's
memory, which in your case is 27,706 objects - not a huge number.
That took a looooooong time in your system.  At the same time, File I/O
time was modest, suggesting that disk speed is good in that system.  Only
five objects needed backup.
    Based upon the numbers, my guess would be that your client may be
constrained for memory (the Transaction numbers may mean that it's
having a tough time keeping the file objects table in memory) or maybe
CPU power; or if something else is running and depriving the ADSM client
when it goes looking for memory, then it's being deprived through
competition.
    Perhaps someone else will have more input based upon further experience
with tracing and/or your client type.
       Richard Sims, BU