Backup Copy Jobs - Parallel Processing?

[mmonroe]

Actually no.. In our datacetner, comparing V8 with Update 3 to V9 with Update 1, and with the backup copy job unchanged, the time for our nightly job has been cut in more than half on the exact same hardware. A 2hr job has been running in 45-55min now on V9-Update1. I have not tested with the new feature to allow per-VM backup files yet.

Most of this thread was well prior to anyone even knowing that per-VM backups files was going to be a feature in an upcoming version so people were talking about VM's processing in parallel like then do in the main backup jobs.

[Gostev]

Interesting on this thread where it was claimed that there would be no performance improvements with "parallel vm processing" on backup copy jobs yet now its a big feature and improves performance in v9. I guess we told you so, but what do silly customers/users know.

Without per-VM backup files enabled, Backup Copy jobs do not use parallel processing at all and you should be able to easily see this from the job log. The benefits you are seeing are coming from removing "dead time" between processed VMs, and even more so from optimized metadata (VBM) handling... but VM processing itself is still sequential, just as before.