FDISR - Archive/Restore with USB 2.0 Harddisk

ErikAlbert,

If I understand you right, then you create the image while in Windows and you restore after booting up into the Acronis Secure Zone?
Because there is no way that you are able to restore your system partition while Windows is running.
That is why I tested both creating and restoring after booting in Acronis, without Windows.

I think I timed between the same button clicks, but even if I'm less accurate, my test doesn't show such a huge difference between creating and restoring the image.
The image size of my test is 2,54 GB, by the way. I guess that should be the amount of data in case you want to calculate the throughput.

 

That's NOT true. I've done this many times for testings.
While I'm in winXPproSP2 and using ATI, I can restore my system partition over and over again.
The restore process requires a reboot and ATI will continue the restoration until it's finished.
After clicking the "OK" button, Windows starts and you are back in business.
I can do this with the Rescue CD also, but that's not necessary.

 

Yes, I've read your test results and you don't have a huge difference.
So I've a problem and I have to think about this. Acronis Support doesn't reply, so I have to solve this problem myself as usual LOL.

 

Exactly, that is what I mean, son.
You need to reboot, and then another couple clicks for selecting the image, etc. (at least in my ATI-8 version)
So, you don't restore while in Windows.

Your test would be more accurate if you create the image while not in Windows.

I think that another test option would be to create and restore your data partition (and that partition should not hold the pagefile for this test, otherwise, ATI will reboot again for the restore)
That way you are sure that you are using the same drivers both ways.

 

The restore process is started in Windows using ATI, where you select the image, etc. until you click the "Proceed"-button and then ATI will show you a popup screen with a "Reboot"-button.
Then you leave Windows and ATI will continue the restoration.
That is NOT the same if you work with the Rescue CD.

I will create an system image with the Rescue CD to Seagate HD and restore with the Rescue CD from Seagate HD
and see if it makes a difference, although I don't believe it will, but you never know.

 

ErikAlbert,

Have you noticed that when you reboot for the Acronis Restore, you don't get the FD-ISR preboot screen, but the Acronis startup screen?
After you click 'reboot' Acronis modifies the MBR and starts from an image C:\Program Files\Acronis\TrueImage\kernel.dat, which loads C:\Program Files\Acronis\TrueImage\ramdisk.dat. It bypasses Windows.
These are the same images that are used to create the rescue CD/floppies.
These are also the same images that are stored in the Acronis Secure Zone, when you create that.

I don't know if creating of the image, while booted in the Acronis rescue CD will make a difference, but I do know that in your previous test your creation of the image and restoration from that image are done with totally different condition sets.

 

Wilbertnl,

My system partition [C:] = 15.49 GB and the
Image backup file (.tib) = 8.05 GB (normal compression).
All tests have been done with Seagate hdd as backup/restore medium and without validation.
Don't compare the timings with previous tests in this thread, because my harddisks changed after these previous tests.
All timings are done between "Proceed" and "OK" button with a digital clock.
(I don't use the timings mentioned on screens, I don't trust them)

Using Acronis Rescue CD
The backup took 40 minuts
The restore took 36 minuts

Using Acronis True Image under Windows
The backup took 7 minuts ---> quite a difference with the Rescue CD (40 minuts)
The restore took 38 minuts

Since I always used ATI, I have a big difference between backup and restore : 7/40 minuts
The test with Rescue CD, like you always did, has no significant difference : 40/37 minutes.
So you don't see the big difference if you use the Rescue CD.
Maybe there is no problem with my restore-speed, using Seagate harddisk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also did another smaller test with copy/paste the image backup file (.tib) of 8.05 GB
1. Copy/paste from WD-Raptor to Seagate = 4m18s
2. Copy/paste from Seagate to WD-Raptor = 4m34s
I know the difference isn't big, but there is a difference in the transfer time.
WD-Raptor/Seagate (backup) is faster than Seagate/WD-Raptor (restore) and ATI is a more complex program than copy/paste.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had no time to do a test with my DATA partition [D:], but I noticed one strange thing.
Using the Rescue CD, I wasn't able to backup my data partition [D:], the screen showed 5 hours for the job and didn't move anymore.
So I cancelled that operation because I was tired and sleepy.
Maybe it's due to the fact that my data partition [D:] is on my second harddisk, while my data partition was on the first harddisk in the past.
But I can't remember if I ever used the Rescue CD to backup my data partition when it was on the first harddisk.
As I said before, I hardly use the Rescue CD, except when my first harddisk is zero-ed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read your very last post and thanks for explaining what I didn't know yet.
I had a .tib-file on Seagate HD, that was created with ATI and I restored it with the Rescue CD and it took 36 minuts.
IMO there is no difference at all between .tib-files of ATI and .tib-files of the Rescue CD.

I did alot of backups and restores lately just for testings and ATI never failed. One thing is certain, I need a break LOL.

 

Thank you for proceeding with these tests, ErikAlbert.

It shows that there is a significant performance difference between ATI under Windows (using Windows drivers) and plain ATI.
Fascinating, isn't it?

Roughly, your timings are equal to mine, since you process 4 times more data.

Correct, unless you use different compression rates.

 

Yes it is. I knew that ATI was fast and I assumed that the backup with the Rescue CD was the same.
In the very beginning I might have used the Rescue CD for backup, but I was so unexperienced and unfamiliar with ATI, that I probably didn't notice and certainly not the timings. I had other problems with ATI in the beginning.
After that I used the Rescue CD only for restoring Windows on a zero-ed harddisk.

It's a pity that the restore is so slow with Seagate, 36 or 38 minuts is too long for me, I can't live with that.
I think, I'm going to use my data partition [D:] for restore again and copy/paste my .tib-files from my Seagate harddisk which is much shorter in time.
One thing is certain, people can't blame me for not having a layered backup : FDISR-snapshots, backup on my second harddisk and Seagate HD.

 

I never noticed either.
But I was using ATI before I installed FD-ISR, so I basically had to image a small amount of data (I don't image my data partition).
A restore took less than 5 minutes. Who cares if you expect it to be less than 3 minutes?
But I knew that your comparison was based on different sets of conditions, and I insisted you to correct that before you were searching for clues that don't exist.

I also store my images on the second internal disk.
Recently I rearranged the hardware of two computers here, so both have two internal harddisks now.
I use my external disk only for backup and transfer reasons.

If you allow me, I want to give you a tip: move your Windows pagefile to the second harddisk. That offers you some performance increase.
And give your pagefile the same minimum and maximum value, so that the size is fixed. I set mine at 384 MB.

 

Why is it that you trust FD-ISR activities, while running Windows and you don't trust ATI under the same conditions?

 

Would it really make a difference moving the pagefile to my data partition [D:]? I have 2x1 gb RAM in total.
If you say so. I will do it because I'm planning to re-install my computer from scratch anyway. Not immediately, but I'm preparing a re-installation.

 

The pagefile is always used, no matter how much RAM is installed.
Or you might try to disable the pagefile, considering your amount of RAM.

 

Peter, maybe you should re-read or you missed my post #20 in this thread.
FDISR is in fact slower than ATI, if you consider the complete system partition [C:] instead of just ONE snapshot.

 

Although the timings are true, I know that those timings are nonsense in practice.
As long timings are reasonable, nobody even cares about timings, because you get alot more in return.
Only a nut like me uses a stopwatch to measure how long it takes to create (archived) snapshots.
It was interesting to know, but nothing more than that.

 

ErikAlbert did a respectable amount of imaging and restoring without a single failure.
I supported ErikAlbert's test with one imaging and restore, also with successful result.
From my experience I state that ATI only failed on me due to a motherboard defect.

I qualify ATI and IFD/IFW (although I'm not a IFD/IFW customer) as very reliable.
Imaging software will only fail due to a power outtage. But then you can repeat the procedure when power is back.

The only risk I see is the fearful unexperienced user, who doesn't take the steps to acquaint himself with the restoration procedure.
Peter, is there by any means a way for you to get comfortable with restoring from an image?

 

Well FDISR and ATI have both proven their reliability on my computer.
In the beginning I was really worried about ATI after reading the Acronis Forum.
That's why I tested ATI so many times in normal and extreme situations and I took any opportunity to use ATI, more than FDISR.
The fact that the restoration (not the backup) from my Seagate HDD is slower than I expected is only a speed/time issue.
I won't ditch ATI for that, because ATI will always do it much faster than a manual re-install.

My separation of system and data was also successfull. Thanks to Seagate HDD I was able to put each partition on a separate harddisk.
Whatever happens to my system partition, I always will have my personal data and I was very glad that Firefox/Thunderbird have such a good structure to allow me to put my settings, emails and address-books on my data partition.
All installation files of my downloaded (free and paid) softwares are stored on my data partition, which is very convenient, when I have to re-install one or more softwares on my system partition.

The combination "Add/Remove Programs + Total Uninstall + Registry Cleaner" to install/uninstall softwares was also a good decision. My only problem is still the registry cleaner, I can't find one that meets my wishes.

I'm taking care of all problems, I have seen in forums during two years, systematically.
I'm not finished yet and there is still much to do, but I'm very happy with the results so far.

It's not my goal to convince other members of my choice, I take my own decisions because I have also an analytical, logical, intuitive and creative brain, much better than any existing software.

 

Maybe you will never be finished.
That is one aspect that I find really attractive in Information Technology.