I think someone there just got confused with the drive max parallelism
and the autochanger max parallelism, in reference to your original post.


Carter
Ext. 5711
Cel. 870.4956
cfowler AT london DOT ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Lane [mailto:JLane AT TORONTOHYDRO DOT COM] 
Sent: March 7, 2003 8:55 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: max parallelism for a jukebox

thanks for this, it's always good to properly understand the tools we
use.
yes, this is indeed the same guy. I suppose I should be happy that at
least it isn't my $ paying for it. I don't dare complain though given
the
stress laid by mgmt on displaying a "co-operative attitude" which seems
to
mean agreeing with whatever the experts tell us. sigh.

Jim Lane
Sr. Technical Consultant
Network Services
Toronto Hydro
office: (416)-542-2820
cell: (416)-896-8576

>>> treiber AT HOTPOP DOT COM 07-Mar-03 8:46:31 AM >>>
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:34:50 -0500, Jim Lane <JLane AT TORONTOHYDRO DOT COM>
wrote:

>I've just read a couple of posts on this from yesterday and I'm
>confused. the replies tended to suggest that this value should be
>related in some way to the number of drives in the jukebox that
>Networker should use for backup, as against leave free for ad hoc
usage,
>restores etc. I was told by the Legato consultant that this value is
the
>maximum number of saveset streams that can be directed to all the
drives
>in the jukebox at once. on that basis this number is supposed to be
set
>at or above the sum of the "target sessions" for all the tape drives.
at
>least that's what I was told. on that theory the Legato guy set the
"max
>parallelism" in my 4-drive STK 9710 to 32. now I'm worried. who's
right
>here? am I over-specifying this value?
>

Oh boy. Is this the same Legato consultant who messed you up a few
weeks
ago? The guy needs a rocket, he is talking garbage. This value is
nothing
like he says, it controls the number of nsrjb operations that can take
place simultaneously, this includes mounts, unmount, labels,
inventories
etc. A value greater than the number of drives makes no sense at all,
although probably doesn't do any harm. You may get nsrjb processes
queued
up waiting for others to complete - although it is possible that
NetWorker
is clever enough to avoid this situation.

What the consultant has done is probably not dangerous, but totally
misguided. It worries me that this "expert" is giving out bad advice
and
charging you for the privilege. Moreover he is giving Legato SMC a bad
name.

I usually set this value to the same as the number of drives. On a
small
library it is frustrating to do an inventory etc. with only one of two
available drives. The theory of keeping a drive free for restores is
valid,
but you have to weigh up your preference. On larger libraries (10+
drives)
it is sometimes sensible to decrease the value considerably since the
load
of running (say) 20 nsrjb processes can be too much of an overhead.

You need to reduce this value to a maximum of 4. You also need to
complain
to Legato about this consultant.

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via
email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via
email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=