*** Sto Rage© netbacker@gmail.com *** [2005-12-31 15:45:01]:
On 12/29/05, Peter W. Osel pwo@infineon.com wrote:
good hint. reading the helpfile though makes me believe that "importing" means: you disable the snapvault snap sched and snap sched and let then DFM issue the update commands? Not sure if I like this approach - making the snapvault update depend on the availability of DFM ...
Yeah, this is my gripe too. Initially I too didn't like the idea of having a windows/unix host control the schedules instead of the secondary filer. Rumor has it that "future" version of DFM will go back to that model. I would be happier if they could at least make DFM schedules more granular instead of on the hour at hourly intervals, i'd prefer to pick a time. As we have 150+ clients, scheduling these to make the best use of the backup window is tough now. Most of the backups finish in the first 10 to 15 minutes, then the filer is idle till the next hour. If it was granular, I could get all my backups done in 3 hours, now they are spread across 10 hours.
I agree, DFM should suppot more flexible scheduling, then you have at least an advantage when scheduling through DFM instead of letting the secondary filer schedule the updates.
If DFM schedules the jobs, it knows when they finish, so why couldn't DFM optimize the scheduling to e.g. always run a certain number of jobs in parallel, i.e. as soon as one job finished, start the next one? Then you could configure a list of jobs that need to get done, a limit of how many jobs should be run in parallel, and DFM does the rest ...
just dreaming at the beginning of a new year ;-)
Happy New Year --pwo
-- Peter W. Osel | pwo@Infineon.COM | pwo@pwo.de | http://pwo.de/ pgp key fingerprint = 79 2D DD 49 C0 AA D8 CF 2C F9 A5 6A BA 37 0E 28