EAZ-Fix system performance

[rendez2k]

Does EAZ-Fix slow down system performance? It appears yes! I did a hard disc benchmark in SiSoftware Sandra and it had a very slow read time at the beginning of the media (I compared it next to several sample drive data included). As soon as I removed EAZ-Fix I re-ran the test, the drive performed as per the sample drives. Has anyone else noticed this? I see that EAZ-Fix installs a service so maybe this is constantly checking for disc changes?

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by rendez2k

Does EAZ-Fix slow down system performance? It appears yes! I did a hard disc benchmark in SiSoftware Sandra and it had a very slow read time at the beginning of the media (I compared it next to several sample drive data included). As soon as I removed EAZ-Fix I re-ran the test, the drive performed as per the sample drives. Has anyone else noticed this? I see that EAZ-Fix installs a service so maybe this is constantly checking for disc changes?

This shouldn't come as any surprise. EAZ-Fix passes all disk I/O thru a kernel level driver and keeps track of files by sector in it's own system. This extra level has to have an impact.

Pete

[Aaron Here]

While Pete's remark about EF may be valid in theory, I have not noticed any discernable slowdown during everyday operations. However, it does slowdown startup time - in my case by about 10 to 20 seconds depending on whether or not it does a defrag/optimization.

[raakii]

wat aaron says is exactly true

[Peter2150]

When I was testing Rollback, I didn't experience anything measurable either, but it could well be system/software load, dependent.

Pete

[rendez2k]

My system certainly 'feels' faster without it and obviously SiSoftware showed some sort of slowdown in the benchmarks.

[maymoons]

can you show us, before after benchmark photo?

[maymoons]

i tested there is no any impact

1. my laptop hdd benchmark without rollback rx
2. benchmark with rollback rx
3. disabled malicious direct disk io
4. benchmark with selected option

[demoneye]

same here , i run it for 3 months with about 64 snapshot , see NO discernable slowdown during everyday operations...

cheers

[Asko]

I had Rollback Rx on a PC and a notebook and did a similar benchmark with HD Speed and HD Tune.
The disk read performance drop with Rollback Rx was quite huge.
It was ~6 MB/s with Rollback and ~60 MB/s after uninstalling the application - on both systems.
Also after uninstalling the disk was %80 fragmented. It took several hours to get it back to normal.
Unlike some other posters I did notice a system slowdown which was the reason I did the benchmark.
Another issue is that my post on HorizonDataSys forum about these same findings was deleted from the forum after a short time. I didn't get a response yet why this was done . They also never reply to forum posts.
Very disappointing .
After all this and the waiting for many promised features I decided to forget about Rollback and look for an alternative.

Asko

[demoneye]

Originally Posted by Asko

I had Rollback Rx on a PC and a notebook and did a similar benchmark with HD Speed and HD Tune.
The disk read performance drop with Rollback Rx was quite huge.
It was ~6 MB/s with Rollback and ~60 MB/s after uninstalling the application - on both systems.
Asko

can u tell how long do u have it installed? how many snapshot did u took ?

10x

[maymoons]

"It was ~6 MB/s with Rollback and ~60 MB/s after uninstalling the application - on both systems."

are you sure, i tested it with crystaldiskmark but i didnt see any slowdown.
6-60 is scary, if test is reliable.

[Asko]

Originally Posted by demoneye

can u tell how long do u have it installed? how many snapshot did u took ?

10x

I did have it for several months creating a new snapshot after each restart and keeping 14 snapshots.
I also did defragment the snapshots on a regular basis.
The snapshots where usually small.

[Asko]

Originally Posted by maymoons

"It was ~6 MB/s with Rollback and ~60 MB/s after uninstalling the application - on both systems."

are you sure, i tested it with crystaldiskmark but i didnt see any slowdown.
6-60 is scary, if test is reliable.

Well I did the test with two different utilities and the result was the same.

Maybe I could live with this performance decrease if it wasn't for the unprofessional attitude of HorizonDataSys after I posted my findings.

Now I just need to find a replacement for RB.

[maymoons]

Now I just need to find a replacement for RB.

Farstone Drive image pro

[rendez2k]

Wasn't Farstone Drive image pro deemed as not very good elsewhere here?

I'm wondering how much you're AV solution has to do with EAZ-Fix slowing down the system (if you're AV is scanning what ever EAZ-Fix is doing). I've changed from COMODO Internet Security to KIS now so I may re-test just out of interest. I'll be sure to grab screen shots from the Sandra results this time too.

[maymoons]

please test and grab screenshot
my test say eaz-fiz is not suspicious
my av is norton av 2009

[maymoons]

i tested again rollback rx on my desktop pc
my pc configiration;
amd 6000+
4 gb ram
500 gb 32 mb catche ncq sata hdd
new install vista sp1 (there is not any soft or driver)

write speed about 79 >install rollback rx>>write speed 56

yes rollback rx slowdown my hdd performance.

This shouldn't come as any surprise. EAZ-Fix passes all disk I/O thru a kernel level driver and keeps track of files by sector in it's own system. This extra level has to have an impact.

i think this is the key point

rollback rx confortable product.
i like it but i dont like slow system.

i buy expensive hdd for speed
i cant allow %30 slowdown (probably higher)

sory rollback rx or clone.

i love active@ disk image
it is fast, it can be backup 10 min. restore 6 min.
maybe it is not faster like rollback rx
but
it is faster than acronis, paradon, farstone
it is more reliable
it has vista based boot cd
it has mbr backup function

active@ my old friend, absolve me i back you