Highlighted

"Live" Job rate differs from "completed" job rate.

I have been trying to improve my job rate on backup jobs. In doing so, I have closely watched as they progress through. When the job is in progress, you can see the 'job rate' change dynamically. And I have seen that number go fro 2,500 MB /min to 10,500 MB /min. And crazy as it sounds, I have attached a screenshot where it reported 205,000 MB /min.

My question is as follows:

1. Why does the 'Live' job rate show a job rate totally different than what is reported once the job completes and moves down to the 'Job history' section?

2. Why do some jobs take longer to kick off? I ask becasue my fastest 'job rate' as seen in attachment is 1,046 MB /min. But that took 7:17 minutes to complete.  However, the same job earlier had reported a slower job rate of 954 MB /min but it completed in 6:34 minutes.

 

Thanks...

1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Accepted Solution!

there are many things that

there are many things that can affect the job rate speeds  take a look at this KM http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH49521  and a virus scan can affect job performance so excluding  the Backup Exec processes from any virus scan running might be helpful.

View solution in original post

4 Replies
Accepted Solution!

there are many things that

there are many things that can affect the job rate speeds  take a look at this KM http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH49521  and a virus scan can affect job performance so excluding  the Backup Exec processes from any virus scan running might be helpful.

View solution in original post

1) The completed job rate is

1) The completed job rate is the average throughput taken over the time it takes for the backup job to complete.

2) Expand the job log's various sections and check the time for stages such as device & media acquisition, loading etc. Possibly, the first job took a slightly longer time to acquire the storage media.

lmosla...the hyperlink is

lmosla...the hyperlink is invalid.

I would like to look at these settings. Can you update the hyperlink address?

the link works for me, maybe

the link works for me, maybe it was a server glitch.