Cloudfreeday's Blog

If you’ve read some of my other posts you’d know that I’m using a program called NetLimiter to track the network activity of Carbonite online backup.

On a Vista installation, NetLimiter stores its logs in the following location: C:\Users\All Users\Locktime\NetLimiter\2\Stats\nlstats-*.dat

This data is important to me as I want to track network usage over an extended period – not only for Carbonite but also for other applications. Hence, I thought it a good idea that these files were backed up – just in case of crash of my hard drive or other disaster.

“The status of each of these files according to Carbonite is ‘File is pending backup when not in use by another program’.”

Despite this being user data, in a user folder, and not in one of Carbonite’s special exclusion zones (see my post “What should be included in your backup?” for more information about Carbonite’s exclusion list), the files were not being automatically backed up.

Over 48 hours ago I manually selected these files for backup. With the exception of a few reboots, my computer has been on and connected to the internet the whole time.

Guess what? Carbonite hasn’t backed up any of these files! For the record, there are only 164 files, totalling a tiny 1.18 MB. The status of each of these files according to Carbonite is “File is pending backup when not in use by another program”. This message doesn’t inspire much confidence in me about Carbonite’s ability to backup these files.

Now, isn’t Carbonite supposed to be able to backup open and locked files? I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes”, but it would seem that the correct answer is “sometimes”.

This is a copy of the script error caused by the Carbonite backup application.

Regarding open or locked files, Carbonite has previously said to me “Carbonite does not directly access files, but uses a Windows Service called virtual Shadow which makes a copy of the file then Carbonite backs up the copy.” I’ve checked Event Viewer and am not seeing any errors relating to Shadow Copy (also called Volume Snapshot Service or VSS).

I’ll contact Carbonite to see what it has to say about this lack of backup!

Oh, one more thing… the Carbonite application also shows the following script error when attempting to backup these files.

I couldn’t quite think of a good title for this post – “update” isn’t quite accurate as there’s no real change to the upload speeds from my computer to the Carbonite backup servers.

Carbonite bandwidth usage as at 16 October 2009 21:04

Check this out… for days on end (with the exception of the occasional spike of a few seconds duration which is an aberration more than anything) the upload speeds have consistently been just under 32.25 KB/s. My connection is capable of a lot more, I assure you.

Also, if I was umm, “maxing out my connection”, you would expect that the speeds to Carbonite would change over time as other activities on my computer took some of the available upload bandwidth. The fact is that I have ample bandwidth for Carbonite to run at full speed and for other regular computer activities. Carbonite uploads have been limited – but not by me or by my connection.

Yesterday Carbonite managed to backup a measly average of 25 MB per hour. For the 19 hours thus far (today) the average is 29 MB per hour. As stated in one of my earlier posts, this is barely enough backup capacity to cope with the daily changes to my Outlook PST files.

I would love to hear about the experiences of other Carbonite customers – especially the following types of users:

• You already have stored with Carbonite greater than 100 GB, and or
• You have in the past 2 weeks uploaded to Carbonite a significant amount of data, say, greater than 50 GB.

It really would be beneficial if you have some before and after statistics so you can point to a change in behaviour (if any) of the Carbonite application.

Carbonite has publicly stated that it manages bandwidth, and I guess with a service claiming to offer “unlimited” data storage, it must manage bandwidth availability and costs, but I guess that the question is whether this “bandwidth management” (or throttling) is fair and equitable, and still consistent with that which is advertised.

Update on Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 00:52

For some, a still picture isn’t quite enough, and I guess that’s fair enough.

In this 1 minute video you’ll see not much action – time moves on, but the slow uploads remain. I guess what it does show you, much better than a still image, is the consistency of the upload speed that I’ve mentioned in a number of my posts.

Now, if during that 1 minute period my internet connection was under strain from the other activities on my computer, you would expect to see some fluctuation in the Carbonite uploads as the available bandwidth is redistributed to the applications that need it.

The fact is, I have plenty of available upload capacity – I just wish that Carbonite would use it.

Update on Saturday, 17 October 2009 at 17:44

Carbonite bandwidth usage as at 17 October 2009 17:42

During the backup of my Outlook PST files I thought that I’d take a peek at NetLimiter to see how “fast” Carbonite was sending off my data. Boy, did I receive a surprise!

From the already slow speeds of around 30 KB/s discussed in this post, the speed – all of a sudden – dropped to about 12 KB/s.

Just so you know – no nothing else changed on my computer on or around that time. This is clearly a result of bandwidth management by Carbonite.

Had this issue been caused by my connection or other local factors the change in speed would not have been so dramatic nor would it have stepped down as evenly as it did.

Carbonite bandwidth usage as at 17 October 2009 17:55

This new low upload speed remained in effect for some 13 minutes. Whilst writing this post, the speed went back to the regular slow speed – as you can see.

I haven’t heard from Carbonite in a few days – I just hope that they’re not “parking” my correspondence as they did in the first half of this year when I also questioned Carbonite upload speeds.

At this rate, I would be lucky to be able to backup 30 MB per hour. What a sorry state of affairs!

“...I will delete (or edit out) any reference, or link, to a site which I believe exists solely, or largely, for viral or referral purposes.”

This blog has received a number of “comments” which I believe are actually nothing more than a way to refer traffic to the author’s own viral marketing or referral program. This is sometimes known as “astroturfing” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing).

It would seem that a mini-industry has established itself – an industry that is solely based on directing referrals to various online backup providers (and other cloud-based services) and receiving payment for any subsequent sign-up. These sites often purport to offer “independent” or “unbiased” analysis, or comparison, of these cloud-based services.

Such sites can also be used to drown-out any negative comment, or to generate positive buzz around products. It’s an unethical way to do business – unethical for the owners of such sites, and unethical for those who pay for referrals. In the end, it’s unfair to any consumer who parts with their hard earned cash based on comments which have been concocted.

I am happy to allow fair comment from all, however, I will delete (or edit out) any reference, or link, to a site which I believe exists solely, or largely, for viral or referral purposes. Every comment posted to this site will be carefully reviewed for adherence to this policy.

If there are persistent efforts by individuals or groups to bypass this policy then such comments will be marked as spam and further action may be taken if required.