SABnzbd Forums

I appreciate the current stats available, but something I'm trying to determine is how much my current servers overlap.
Would there be any way to record the amount of article availability that overlaps the various servers?

Example:
I have three servers, A, B, and C.
I'd like to see something like:

60% of articles were on all three.
5% were only on A&B
10% were only on B&C
3% were on B only
5% were on C only.
1% were on A only.
16% were not found.

Why?
If I saw the above stats, I'd serious reconsider the need to maintain server A, since it provided so little over having B&C.

60% of articles were on all three.
5% were only on A&B

SAB does not know that: SAB tries an article on server X, and if it's there SAB has it, and SAB will not try other servers as no need for that.

Hmm. Okay, that makes sense.

I think I could get the end analysis I'd like with a different bit of bookkeeping, and with that in mind.

I still have servers A,B,C. If I put them all at the same priority, presumably they all get some portion of the first attempt, and then a portion of second and third attempts.

Thus, if we could expose:
20% "Tried A, success"
15% "Tried B, success"
17% "Tried C, success"
5% "Tried A, fail, Tried B, success"
13% "Tried A, fail, Tried C, fail, Tried B, fail"
etc.

I've able to kinda get these numbers by hand, through shuffling their priorities, and then clearing stats, running for a while, and seeing the % completion rates, but this has a couple main shortcomings:
- I'd ideally like them all the same priority for speed
- Clearing stats constantly loses so much history.

First of all: I'm quite sure nobody is going to implement in SAB what you want.


The good news: with sabnzbd set to +DEBUG, you can analyze anything you want, and try to find all kinds of correlations. Keyword in sabnzbd.log is "missing". Check it out.

PS: SAB 3.2.0 provides info per server. Have you seen that?

Yea, I'm running 3.2. It's what got me looking for more data.
Hmm.
I'll have to ponder the log analysis. Just worry then about the disk space the logs will consume at that level.

adarkmethodicrash wrote: ↑January 29th, 2021, 9:51 am I'll have to ponder the log analysis. Just worry then about the disk space the logs will consume at that level.

If you're downloading with SAB, I cannot imagine the diskspace for sabnzbd.log will be your bottleneck ...

I have a machine with all the mechanics, but the *arrs punt the finished product off to various NAS arrays. So not quite the same destination.