On my Windows 10 Pro machine that is acting as a File Server/BackUp Server (My replacement for my old WHS2011 machines) the ‘Files in Queue’ takes a VERY LONG time to get worked.
I would like the ability to be able to increase the priority and number of cores that can work this queue in order to reduce the time in queue of the files.
I am using LightsOut Version 3.x to manage my Servers and when there are NOT client or other important activities that it watches out for the Server is either put in StandBy or Hibernate mode.
I would like the ‘Files in Queue’ work to be completed BEFORE that happens so that everything is written to DISK before sleeping.
Your complaint is with LightsOut for not recognizing that UrBackup is a process you consider high value. If you cannot configure LightsOut to fit your needs, perhaps another system manager would work better. UrBackup does not need to make a special case for your computer when everyone else has used it as-is for years.
Hi Don,
Thanks for giving an answer.
First I would like to say that UrBackup is the BEST and EASIEST to configure Backup solution that I have EVER seen in my whole time working with PC (Since 1984 DOS v2.0).
(I have worked with Networks since 1985 and I used to love Novell until 1996)
(Mircosoft does not even understand how to use networks to this day)
You misunderstood what I was trying to get across so I will try again.
LightsOut DOES NOT have a problem recognizing UrBackup. It is through LightsOut that I even found out that UrBackup exists.
The additional functionality that I would LIKE to see in UrBackup is the ability to have it increase the amount of resouces that are available when working the “Files in Queue” after a backup is acutally completed from the Clients point of view because my server machine has a lot more that could be used to increase the speed of the operation.
And a small note: Just because software has been running and used for YEARS does NOT mean that it can not be improved. Anyone who thinks that their software CANNOT be improved is wrong because NOTHING in this world is perfect nor does it cover all use-cases that exist.
Your remark is a slap in the face to a new user that has just started using this software.
I would like to also give UrBackup a BIG compliment but there is NO WHERE on it’s web-site where such comments can even be sent. (There is always room for improvement, ALWAYS)
This is a feature request NOT a complaint!
Yeah, there are only 2 threads working on “Files in Queue”. I’m unconvinced that having more threads would improve your speed. Please have a look at the performance monitor to see where the bottleneck is (database disk, backup storage disk or CPU). If for example the bottleneck is your backup storage disk(s) and the disk(s) are hard disks it is unlikely that having more threads would increase the performance.
My understanding is that it’s typical bottleneck is io speed for accessing the database and an ssd help a lot with random, small io to access the database.
Thanks for your patience.
It took quite a while until I had the conditions where I could observe just this one action of the UrBackup server.
Yes URONI you are right it is the disk IO that is taking so long and causing the bottleneck.
I will have to see what I can do about that.
Thnaks for your information here.