Karen's Replicator v3.5.9

Of course,thats logical!

Really cannot see the relevance of comparing SP with KR.
They are a completely different style of apps. serving different purposes.
SP creates images of the whole partition,whereas KR merely copies the data on that partition.

I timed SP,KR and Cobians.
Predictably SP was fastest,backing up at the rate of 3.2GBs/min,Cobian 1.8GBs/min and Karens 0.9GBs/min-these were for full backups.
The incremental backup times were dependent on how old the data was and what had changed,but for a one day old data incremental,KR took 40 secs as a rough guide-very respectable but of course still 4 times slower than SP.
The results can of course be rigged for a KR incremental-if its done immediately after a full backup,it takes only seconds.
The absolute speeds would obviously vary with another computer,but the point is that the RATIOS of the given times between the three apps should be very similar.

 

I'm not going to search either - I was simply referring to what you wrote in post #5.
have just remembered - you are still using SP 2 which was much slower. even so I find it difficult to see how they can both be as slow as each other.

 

Slow down Hairy - completely different apps ? serving different purposes ? In you mind yes but data is only data - there is nothing inherently correct about backing up data rather than imaging. If you keep your data on a separate partition or drive it can be quickly and safely imaged - much more quickly in my case. ronjor points out quite correctly that Karen is free but if someone already has Acronis, SP, Paragon there is also an argument for imaging data - free and faster

 

SP support (grnxnm) was also surprised by my post about comparing the full backup time of SP and KR, which was almost the same.
According him it was due to the fact, that my data partition contains many AVI-files waiting for burning on DVD, which are already compressed.
The more compressed files you have, the slower SP will backup and when the majority of the files are already compressed KR will backup as fast as SP.

He suggested to backup with SP without compression and that this would be faster, but I had no time to test this.

 

In everyday usage,as I have verified,there is no comparison!
SP was almost 4 times faster than KR.This is obvious and really cant be argued about
Anyone would get similar results

 

High time for some hard facts :

My Data Partition [D:] = 35.2 GB used space whereof 22.6 GB of AVI-files. 35,2 GB = 36,909,875 KB
Same hardware, same external usb HDD (Seagate)
Used softwares :
ShadowProtect v2.0.1.35 (SP)
Karen's Replicator v3.5.5 (KR)
All timings are pure backup times (loading CD is not included)

Using CD, which is recommended by many users.
SP Full Backup of 35.2 GB = 25m and .spf-file = 35,903,095 KB (standard compression)
SP Full Backup of 35,2 GB = 20m and .spf-file = 37,010,867 KB (no compression)

Using SP under WinXPproSP2, which is always faster than the CD.
SP Full Backup of 35.2 GB = 23m and .spf-file = 35,903,105 KB (standard compression)
SP Full Backup of 35,2 GB = 19m and .spf-file = 37,010,867 KB (no compression)

KR Full Backup of 35.2 GB = 26m

So SP isn't 4 times faster than KR and the difference of 1-3 minuts is very small as I said in the past.
Grnxnm was also right : backup with no compression is a bit faster, when there are many compressed AVI-files.

 

Anyone who is running SP could confirm your figures for SP are abnormally slow and that using the CD is mostly faster for backups.

What you seem to be saying is that for data backup,KR is almost as fast as SP,which is a different matter altogether than just generalising the way you have.

I disagree with your whole premise.

It obviously is a big leap of logic to claim that generally KR is therefore almost on par with SP for speed,even if it were correct,which of course it isnt.

According to you the AVI files do slow SP down to this extent, but doubt it,even SP support seemed puzzled according to you.


Your info goes against all established facts-lets just say the figures were what you obtained under these circumstances,but everything seems problematical

If in fact SP was that slow-they would be bankrupt by now and make no sales!!
Who would buy it at those speeds-Come on!!

 

May I please ask a question to the experienced users of Karen's Replicator?

Could one of you please help The Snowman?

He has a question here:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20265677-Free-Replicator-v359

Thanks much in advance !!!

(Sorry, I don't have Karen's Replicator )

 

Thank You anonymous_user !!!

 

I have two jobs in Replicator :
1. Data Backup : to backup my data, every day.
2. Data Restore : to restore my data, never used it, only tested it.

Why is that so difficult ? Backup/Restore have always a source and destination, just like image backup/restore.
From one glass to another glass.

 

Hi Erik

I been relying soley on DriveSnapshot for sometime to make backups to another partition so i haven't really taken interest in this one yet.

Can you tell me what advantage Karen's Replicator can make for me? The way i understand it Karen's Rep can quickly and easy make back ups of any or all my folders and their contents in raw form and even overwrite them later or as often either on-the-fly or via scheduled job.

In DriveSnapshot i can mount my backup image and review or copy individual files/folders etc.

I'm trying to see how or if Karen's Rep can help automate this same process or else i'm quite content to settle if it just makes duplicate copies fast and easy to whatever other volume i prefer to store them in.

Thanks

 

With KR I don't have to mount or dismount, because there is no image.
I only have to copy/paste the folder(s) or file(s) I need.

In practice I only use KR to backup the changes in my data partition.
I have a second job, called "Data Restore", in case for a full restore, but I never use it.

 

I see.

I might give it try and see what way is best that it performs and can do to keep backup copies up-to-date then.