Hmm.  I think the whole point is that the current server should have enough 
horsepower to handle this without having to look at storage nodes etc and 
without having to be worried about running full backups due to the performance 
impact.
 
There's no difference from the server side to running a full backup to running 
an incremental.  The only difference from a CPU cycles point of view is the 
amount of data it's shifting if the data's coming back to the server for 
backup.  If enough servers are backing up that the network card is 100% 
utilised between 8 and 10pm, then GUI performance is going to be slow (not sure 
which version it is) no matter how much bandwidth you've got.  Personally, I'd 
be backing up critical applications at full every night and retaining it for a 
short timeframe rather than running incrementals and adding to the recovery 
times - good business practice if you can get someone to pay for the necessary 
drives.
 
As regards my previous post about limiting this by processor, this shouldn't 
strictly be necessary.  All process scheduling is controlled by the OS.  Some 
apps can have a problem with multiple processors, but I've seen no evidence to 
suggest that NW's one of them.
 
Cheers,
 
Stuart. 

________________________________

From: EMC NetWorker discussion on behalf of Fazil Saiyed
Sent: Tue 15/05/2007 16:56
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Tuning Networker for multiple CPUs



Hello,
Looking at your responces,it apprears perhaps managment needs to give it a
secound thought at backup level FULL, most places there should be no need
to do that level everyday ( There could be exceptions)
secound you would perhaps slow your server down further if you added
addtional Tape drive load to it, i am thinking there is enough Tape power
( with multiplexing-allowed) to handle all your server load withen a given
night, however your FULL schedule is placing extra load every night, not
sure if you use GB ethernet or not, but that may help speed up the
backups, perhaps additional storage node is a batter options in your case.
HTH

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