O&O DiskImage 18 Released (November 16, 2022) Website Announcement Download NEW! O&O DiskImage 18 Professional: Fast and Secure Backup for Windows 11.
O&O DiskImage 18 Pro rebuilds core engine to deliver major performance improvements By Nick Peers @nickpeers - November 16, 2022
There doesn't appear to be much interest in O&O DiskImage. I can't say that I've ever tried it, but the reviews seem good. Over the years, other O&O applications have also rated well.
I haven't tried anything from them in several years but when everyone else goes full subscription model I may go back to it. It was always reliable in the past. My only gripe was that incremental and differential backups took longer than a full backup. I assume they are doing a full verification of the base image before proceeding. If it performs better than in the past it will definitely get my interest. If not it's a good solution if you are only doing full backups.
I've installed O&O DiskImage 19 on a very old Windows 10 computer. I'm doing my first full backup now. I don't usually do incremental backups with any of my image backup applications, but I do differentials. I'll keep an eye on the time it takes to do.
IFW is that way for me. Doing differential and incremental images requires it to calculate what's changed versus what's already there. That requires time. Reflect is faster in this, for me, because it has services running in the background all the time.
Nate, have you tried the Tracking option in IFW? For incremental images. In tests I've found it is 5 times faster than creating an incremental image without Tracking.
Hi Brian. Time has never been a major concern to me with backups. It's not like I sit at my computers waiting for backups to complete. They're all on schedules anyway. But after Jack brought it to my attention about O&O DiskImage, I decided to time a full and differential backup using it. On my old computer, a full system drive backup took about 13 minutes. A differential backup a few hours later took about 15 minutes. It was a much smaller file, but it took longer to produce. It also didn't put the differential file in the same folder as the full. It put it on the root of my backup drive instead. By the way... Where is the IFW tracking setting?
Hadron, I'm with you. 99% of my backups are scheduled. But I like my restores to be fast. Look up Tracking in the IFW pdf. I don't create incrementals except for tests. I prefer differentials. I put this in my IFW.ini. PHYLockWriteTracking=1 Put it in the PHYLock section. VSS is still used for the backup.
I would, but I only do differential images. Actually, given the time it takes to create them, maybe I should just do full. I can create a full image in 2 min, whereas a differential takes 6 min. Using this in the ifw.ini makes it super easy. With it there, the options also follow through to my .wim. [RESTORE_DEFAULTS] UseOrgHDNum=1 Reboot=4 WriteChangedSecsOnly=1 WriteMBR=1
I saw the PHYLockWriteTracking=1 setting. I didn't realise that was it. I also only create differentials.
Strange. The only occasion I saw similar times was when I wasn't using "Faster Changes Only Backups" when creating a Full backup.
Me? If so, I'm not using hashes anymore. I figured there was no need with my new samsung 990 pro. It's fast already, and I won't have the clutter with added hash files.
Thanks Nate. That explains why your diffs are so slow. You only need those 2 hash files with the Full Backup, not with your diffs. So negligible clutter. If one is creating incrementals, those hash files are needed with every backup.
