Performance Benchmarking for Destination
Completed - Needs feedback
It would be great to be provided with an option to check read / write performance for any available destination added through JetBackup, which would help us diagnose potential issues with a storage device or destination as the cause of slower backups.
This functionality would be ideal to be implemented with the 'Validate Destination' option so that when pressed you are also provided a read / write speed for the device or any additional statistics which may be helpful to allow us to identify issues.
I like this idea
Hello Dennis,
Thank you for submitting your feature request! We are proud to announce that this feature is currently included as "Under Consideration" in our roadmap for JetBackup 5. Although we do not yet have an ETA for completion, we do hope to provide updates soon so please stay tuned. We appreciate your patience and feedback!
Best Regards,
The JetApps Team
Hello Dennis,
Thank you for submitting your feature request! We are proud to announce that this feature is currently included as "Under Consideration" in our roadmap for JetBackup 5. Although we do not yet have an ETA for completion, we do hope to provide updates soon so please stay tuned. We appreciate your patience and feedback!
Best Regards,
The JetApps Team
Hi there,
This would be an excellent addition, thank you.
There are two other key suggestions I would have in relation to the same 'performance tracking' area, outlined in the screenshot below...
https://snipboard.io/wvlKVH.jpg
The addition of this 'Summary' screen is great, however, if we were able to see a 'Time Taken' on a per-account basis, we would easily be able to track potential issues (such as accounts which have excessive inodes), and then add filtering (or some other solution) to avoid disruption to the backup process.
Equally, it would be great to see these fields as sortable, so we can (for example), sort by 'Status', to check which accounts did fail, or alternatively sort by 'Time Taken' to see which accounts had taken longest to complete.
What are your thoughts? This would give us an incredible level of visibility over the whole process, with just a few relatively minor tweaks / UI revisions.
Hi there,
This would be an excellent addition, thank you.
There are two other key suggestions I would have in relation to the same 'performance tracking' area, outlined in the screenshot below...
https://snipboard.io/wvlKVH.jpg
The addition of this 'Summary' screen is great, however, if we were able to see a 'Time Taken' on a per-account basis, we would easily be able to track potential issues (such as accounts which have excessive inodes), and then add filtering (or some other solution) to avoid disruption to the backup process.
Equally, it would be great to see these fields as sortable, so we can (for example), sort by 'Status', to check which accounts did fail, or alternatively sort by 'Time Taken' to see which accounts had taken longest to complete.
What are your thoughts? This would give us an incredible level of visibility over the whole process, with just a few relatively minor tweaks / UI revisions.
They added a "Speedtest" in the latest EDGE version.
It tests a 100 MB file in both upload and download.
Would be nice to let us select the test file zie, etc 100 MB, 1 GB, 5 GB, 10 GB to simulate actual backup performance.
Having 10 Gbit networked servers wont give you an actual idea of speed test only using a 100 MB file.
They added a "Speedtest" in the latest EDGE version.
It tests a 100 MB file in both upload and download.
Would be nice to let us select the test file zie, etc 100 MB, 1 GB, 5 GB, 10 GB to simulate actual backup performance.
Having 10 Gbit networked servers wont give you an actual idea of speed test only using a 100 MB file.
Replies have been locked on this page!