Hello,
Topic name contains exactly the problem. I went to review the previous year month to date comparison of data usage metrics and saw you get one year only to compare with. What is with that? Data storage is stupid cheap now and has been for a long time. I would like to review historic per site data usage from epoch of site, this truncation at one year is silly at best.
thanks!
I assume you are referring to the bandwidth and usage reports. The existing report system is already too old. If we keep too long time of data, the data retrieval time could be very long. Because of it, we are rewriting the report system. It will allow us to keep the reports much longer time, and reports could be generated faster. At this moment, it is under testing. Stay tuned.
I recommend that you buy your own InControl2 private instance and then let us know…
Data storage is a tiny fraction of the almost six-figure monthly cost. Thanks
Michael, Thanks your for your reply. I understand that data retrieval times could be affected by the large number of customers simultaneously wanting to look at historic data but really?? Most likely it would be at max several thousand queries per second, even a small instance contained on some cloud resource could handle this with relative ease. It is good to know that Peplink is looking into better reporting with longer useful time frames.
Hello Tim,
I do not really understand your answer. Yes, I could buy a InControl2 private instance but I do not see the need. It is simply a question of longer data retention of usage metrics. This by itself is not a great technical hurdle, InControl2 is already doing this quite well for 12 month period. Why would such “small” amount of extra stored data (usage metrics) be such a challenge that I would need my own private instance of it?
tia.