After a little whining about single processor programming, some
recommendations from friends (/Wave Hi Stan/Conrad) I have a key word for
you guys...

T2000

I am not a sales guy for anyone, but the T2000 + single processor
programming = ZOOOOM (kind of like the Mazda commercial <insert singing:
zoom-zoom-zoom...>

As far as your backup times...

Turn the parallelism way up... You can process more than you think; but I
recommend you experiment with a lab before live data.

Also, when parallelism goes up your backup time goes waaay down, but your
restore time goes waaay up... 

My boss doesn't usually care how long backups take as long as they do not
interfere with production... My boss will squeal like a stuck pig when our
customers start complaining how long their critical restore takes... So pick
your poison carefully...

/signed

NtwrkrSerf

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Stan Horwitz
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:37 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Cloning parallelism


On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Goslin, Paul wrote:

> Here Here !
>
> I'm glad to see we are not the only ones who have noticed this lack of 
> multi-processor support. It's like having a HUMMER with an V8, but
> only
> 3 spark plugs, looks impressive , but don't expect it use all the  
> power
> that's available to it... Or accomplish as much as it could...
>
> We've asked EMC about this, and the only suggestion they made was "try 
> increasing the server parallelism", which has made no measurable 
> difference that we can see. Then they closed the case without our 
> consent without answering our initial question: Why doesn't networker 
> utilize multiple processors ????

Perhaps if enough customers who desire that capability ask EMC to  
imbue NetWorker with multi-processor capability, EMC's product  
managers might be convinced that a valid business case exists to  
include that feature.

The lack of multiple processor support is a major issue for me. I run  
NetWorker 7.4 on Solaris 10. I have several NDMP clients that I back  
up using the history feature. When the index data is in the process of  
being sorted, it kills the processor on my 32-processor Sun T2000 is  
where everything involving NetWorker runs. As a result, I have a fast  
server that slows to a craw at least once a week because of  
NetWorker's uni-processor limitation.

I would be happy to compile the list of customers who want NetWorker  
to utilize multiple processors. I sure am one of them. Feel free to  
write to me privately via stan AT temple DOT edu and/or reply to this message  
publicly. There are several EMC people subscribed, so if you complain  
directly to this list, they will see your emails. What I will do is  
wait until next week and submit an RFE on this issue via PowerLink and  
I can attach a list of customers who need multi-processor capability  
if you speak up.

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