All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Why use jetbackup? Acronis Cloud is better with the same price...
Hi,
For the last few years I used jetbackup for directadmin to backup my customers. As I received many many errors, opened several tickets, and I always received the same answer. Please update your agent to BETA, or we know about this bug, it will be done within the next 3-6 month.
Tried to do disaster recovery, always failed with different errors, okay forget it, manual work. I think its not a stable solution, but it should be without bugs.
Then they raised the price, and I thought. Maybe there should be a better solution, then I found it. Acronis Cloud.
You need an agent license which is 9 usd/mo, and a storage server and thats it.
And you will receive a fancy only centralised UI, where you can recover, download, and edit your backup plan. Simple and more Enterprise.
My Benchmark:
Jetbackup backed up my server which has 480gb account data within 6 hour.
Acronis did the same, but backed up the full server which was 800gb within 1 hour.
Jetbackup daily incremental backup took 2 hour minimum
Acronis did the same within 20 minutes.
It has a very simple UI for end users, which is very easy to use.
Then my question is, why we use jetbackup? I dont know.
What do you think?
Comments
I think @MikePT switched from Jet to Acronis, and now back to Jet. Maybe he can explain his reason?
One thing to note that Acronis uses snapshot direct to disk level and Jetbackup is using file based.
Am using both product for different use case.
We do have increased number of restore failure and a few ticket opened with Jetbackup as well. Keen to hear @MikePT too.
We used Acronis back in 2021 and in that time it had a lot of bugs, including kernel panics from Acronis Agent.
JetBackup is more intuitive, easy to install and use. That's my opinion.
So Acronis backed up 800GB (including some compression maybe?) in one hour. Only uploading 800GB would need a 1.8Gbit connection for this. Even if it compresses 50% of it, it would still need a solid 900mbit connection for one hour?!
Math doesn't add up.
The company I worked at used Jet, then switched to Acronis for "cost reduction" and it was not better from any point of view. Backups were slower, restores were slower, UI was buggy. Besides the price, everything else was worse than Jet.
It might be better now, but after that initial experience, I wouldn't try it again personally.
Server has 2.5gbit connection , backup has 2.5gbit too, and the compression was great, so uploaded 370gb
I really wanted Acronis to work out, word for word same experience.
I've seen several hosts who switched to Acronis but end up going back for various reasons. It does seem like a worse choice but no experience with it myself.
The number of Inodes plays a bigger role than the data size in terms of backup time. Acronis does block-level backup, which, in theory, should be faster in disaster recovery.
JetBackup does file level backup. It is faster in restoring individual accounts and files.
You might not ever need disaster recovery for a server (it is still better to be prepared), but account-level restores are everyday tasks. This is where JetBackup shines.
While JetBackup has some bugs like any software, and they often try to blame them on the cPanel/DirectAdmin API, Acronis has a worse history. This is why providers switch back to JetBackup.
If you have to choose one, choose JetBackup. If you need two, get Acronis for disaster recovery.
Tweak the JetBackup settings, I think by default it's set to a lower priority thus taking longer. For me it does about 120GB in ~ 20 minutes (1Gbit connection). By keeping this linearity it would take shy of one hour and a half for 480GB like in your case.
Lost confidence in Acronis when their desktop product went subscription. It was like a change in leadership or ownership. They tend to have years long bugs/annoyances that makes you wonder who is QAing their shit, because it can be terrible.
IMO they both have different approach and use case.
Jetbackup is good if you want to backup and restore files and folders. Acronis is good for disaster recovery (backup and restore FULL server)
I use both for almost 4 years and so far so good.
Just a note, be careful when you need to install server update if you use both Acronis and Kernelcare.
No, it really isn't.
Acronis requires you use their cloud portal to do any sort of restores. It's:
Francisco
Acronis rep here. Sorry to hear about your experience with us. I would like to know if the root cause of the issues you were experiencing is being addressed. Is it possible for you to share any related support ticket number, so I could analyze them deeper?
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to see if those bugs were were sorted out - any chance to share ticket or at least bug IDs mentioned by the support team?
Sorry to hear that.. I would like to see if there's indeed a common issue and if I can try to prioritize fixing that internally, any chance to share an example of a support ticket number or a bug ID?
I would like to see if the related bugs are prioritized - any chance to share an example of the support ticket number or the bugID provided by them?
On Sunday 1st September, v5.3.9 was retired from the STABLE branch, and v5.3.12 was promoted to the STABLE branch.
Worth having a look at https://changelog.jetbackup.com/jetbackup/5/base/ to see what's new/changed.
In our case there were a number of fixes to address issues we'd seen and/or reported.