Concurrent backup processes.
Needs Feedback
As a server owner I would like the ability to allow multiple, concurrent, backups to be taken at one time, to allow my backups to complete more quickly.
I like this idea 
cPanel, WebHost Manager and WHM are registered trademarks of cPanel, L.L.C. for providing its computer software that facilitates the management and configuration of Internet web servers.
Please note that the guaranteed outcome of this may not always be that backups "complete more quickly". There are many factors at play. The average server (especially VPS environments) would likely end up overloading and buckling under the load.
At worst, it would bump up against the maximum load value configured in Tweak Settings and result in the same "time to backup" simply with the simultaneous backups running slower themselves.
I would like to see further customer feedback on this to see whether a feature like this is considered valuable, or if the risks to server integrity/load would otherwise be a major concern and therefore this feature would not be used.
Please note that the guaranteed outcome of this may not always be that backups "complete more quickly". There are many factors at play. The average server (especially VPS environments) would likely end up overloading and buckling under the load.
At worst, it would bump up against the maximum load value configured in Tweak Settings and result in the same "time to backup" simply with the simultaneous backups running slower themselves.
I would like to see further customer feedback on this to see whether a feature like this is considered valuable, or if the risks to server integrity/load would otherwise be a major concern and therefore this feature would not be used.
Please note that the guaranteed outcome of this may not always be that backups "complete more quickly". There are many factors at play. The average server (especially VPS environments) would likely end up overloading and buckling under the load.
At worst, it would bump up against the maximum load value configured in Tweak Settings and result in the same "time to backup" simply with the simultaneous backups running slower themselves.
I would like to see further customer feedback on this to see whether a feature like this is considered valuable, or if the risks to server integrity/load would otherwise be a major concern and therefore this feature would not be used.
Please note that the guaranteed outcome of this may not always be that backups "complete more quickly". There are many factors at play. The average server (especially VPS environments) would likely end up overloading and buckling under the load.
At worst, it would bump up against the maximum load value configured in Tweak Settings and result in the same "time to backup" simply with the simultaneous backups running slower themselves.
I would like to see further customer feedback on this to see whether a feature like this is considered valuable, or if the risks to server integrity/load would otherwise be a major concern and therefore this feature would not be used.
I think this is worth investigating though; each individual backup process should still check for high load and "pause" as required, but I also believe that it may be interesting for backups, especially if you have a lot of accounts on the server where a few have really large databases (the mysqldump takes AGES), it could meanwhile be creating the archives for the accounts that have no or small databases... I'm pretty sure that it would definitely be something I'd like to see investigated indeed.
I think this is worth investigating though; each individual backup process should still check for high load and "pause" as required, but I also believe that it may be interesting for backups, especially if you have a lot of accounts on the server where a few have really large databases (the mysqldump takes AGES), it could meanwhile be creating the archives for the accounts that have no or small databases... I'm pretty sure that it would definitely be something I'd like to see investigated indeed.
Backups are already performed with multicore compression, by having multiple ones running at the same time it would hit disk usage much harder.
I also have doubts about how much gain you would get vs then amout the server could slow down during the,backup process.
Backups are already performed with multicore compression, by having multiple ones running at the same time it would hit disk usage much harder.
I also have doubts about how much gain you would get vs then amout the server could slow down during the,backup process.
I have some large backups that take time and though I have no issue with the overall performance of mine (as mine as still small in comparison to many), what might work well is once the compression is done, and external transfers be handled in a separate process allowing the next backup to start and do it's compression and such. The external transfers should not put much of a load on the disks even if there are multiple concurrent. This might be a reasonable compromise.
I have some large backups that take time and though I have no issue with the overall performance of mine (as mine as still small in comparison to many), what might work well is once the compression is done, and external transfers be handled in a separate process allowing the next backup to start and do it's compression and such. The external transfers should not put much of a load on the disks even if there are multiple concurrent. This might be a reasonable compromise.
Replies have been locked on this page!