Transfer rate

This is the only time that this has happened when creating archives and snapshots, but the transfer rate gradually decreases each time I use FDISR. Normally, the transfer rate increases and speeds up throughout the process. Today, creating a snapshot that would normally take 8 minutes took over 30. I watched FDISR almost come to a halt. I rebooted, tried the same thing again, and again the same thing kept happening, no matter if I copied to a snapshot or an archive.

Has anyone else experienced this? I'm really hoping it's not a hard drive problem. I've had similar happen before, but a reboot solved the problem. Now it's happening all the time.

Many thanks

 

One guess maybe a heavily fragmented disk.

 

May be worth a look at the event viewer.

 

Problem appears to be sorted after a reinstall/reformat. I erased my disk with Seatools, thinking it would be the 'proper' thing to do, although I normally use DBAN other times. When I installed my OS, had transfer rate problems and trouble with FDISR - it kept freezing, slow transfers, etc.

Nuked hard drive with DBAN and reinstalled and all working perfectly again now. Amazing how important erasing the hard drive can be.

 

Yes indeed. After re-installing my computer, I can zero or format my harddisk at anytime and restore them with clean defragged images, that have hardly been on-line.
The first image (off-line) has FDISR and one off-line snapshot, which I can use to create a clean off-line archive.
The second image (on-line) has FDISR and one on-line snapshot, which I can use to create a clean on-line archive.

I only have to restore the first image and copy/update the on-line archive to a new snapshot and I have my complete system partition back.
I also have an image of both snapshots together to restore even faster.

I also can use these two images to switch to another Image Backup software and/or switch to another ISR-software without re-installing my softwares all over again.

 

I also have a 'perfect', untouched, unmodified snapshot for restoring. But I have another question:

When installing Vista, there were a couple of times that the installation froze and as a safety precaution I ran chkdsk before continuing. Does chkdsk affect only the current snapshot, or does it work on the actual hard disk itself, affecting all snasphots? So, if I am having to reboot into my Vista snapshot because of problems, does this affect my XP snapshot?

Many thanks

 

The way I see it :
- chkdsk is a disk command and affects the complete harddisk, no matter how many snapshots you have and it doesn't matter in which snapshot you run the chkdsk command.
Besides that, chkdsk can only run on the system partition during reboot, just like an off-line defragmentation in PerfectDisk.

- defraggers like PerfectDisk affects also the complete harddisk.

I could be wrong of course, I'm not an expert in anything.

 

Do you have any security programs running (may have been unpdated) ?
if so try turning them off and then try FDISR again.

 

As a regular practice & routine after a few days on one snapshot i always clear out the common leftover files/data from internet (using no registry cleaners) and then use a freeware named RESTORATION to re-write or delete completely as it says already deleted files. They pile up fast and load up on the disk and over time slow my snapshots too.
For some reason after this rather lengthy and time-consuming wipe if you will, the FD snapshots become snappier! There must be something to this because before starting this habit i just lived with normal clearing caches and an occasional defrag with UltimateDefrag. Since doing the RESTORATION routine theres a very noticable improvement in FD's snapshots for me in XP Pro. And the TRANSFER RATE of copying/updating to archives zooms and is over in literally seconds. I now run thru that process regularly "first" before updating it's archive. Works for me, it might for others too.

 

Thanks for the warning. After all the recent fuss about the immanent demise of the Real FD-ISR (RFD-ISR) I thought I might install it again on a spare machine, but now I think I will stay as I am. I find that a number of Acronis system images ( protected by Returnil or Deepfreeze) provides for my needs. I like the idea that each image is as I left it - and they are certainly snappier than
anything I have known previously.

 

I'm unclear exactly what your asking Pete, but I THINK you're wondering if the program RESTORATION runs faster, to that i have to say it depends on how many deleted files it picks up during it's scan.

Theres very little discussion on whether there are genuine benefits to using programs like this to overwrite deleteds and remove their file records too but i can attest as one user who does see a gain everytime i do it. I can't help but assume that the less identifiable file remnants left on the disc does make for some performance gains, enough of such that i make it a regular routine now.

 

Easter are you referring to Restoration 2.5.14 ? I'm running a check now but can not see how to"delete" files found


Found it - "hidden" top left under others. Now replacing 7.8 million vacant clusters

 

It was only after 2 hours plus that I remembered I had Returnil running

 

Now I'm even more confused than normal. I have started Restoration again - after turning off Returnil protection - and rebooting. At 25 minutes I am 60% of the way thru. it looks like even though Returnil was protecting that the first run actually did something ? what exactly is this program removing or restoring and can the presence of large numbers of deleted files slow down a system or reduce the transfer rate ?

 

Well all i can say is that it works for me and my snapshots are snappier in response as well as Copy/Updates saves me vital seconds even if a few, in the windows scheme of things shaving off seconds easily translates into a renewed satisfaction after PC boot up into a much better responsive behavior in the system overall.

Don't know who that source is or how expert they are, but RESTORATION really does work for me, and besides why would a developer waste time & effort to go thru the trouble of making an app for this duty if it was of no real consequence.

 

I do have security apps running, yes. I leave my system normal whilst updating and copying snapshots. I use Avira AV and, at the moment, OA Free, with SAS and SandboxIE, so nothing really known for hogging memory.

I'll try turning them off, but I feel that the problem is disk related. I've been having trouble for a few weeks now (actually, since buying 2 new SATA drives).

Looks interesting, EASTER. Will certainly give it a try.

 

I don't think the developer is wasting his time BUT he is only trying to do two things (1) allow for deleted files to be restored - and this works partially - probably best with newly deleted files and (2) The complete deletion of deleted files - again succeeds to a degree - although as soon as a machine is turned off or rebooted a few more deleted files will reappear. The reason for wanting to delete files here is Privacy.

It may be that my systems are snappy enough already ( not running copious amounts of security helps) and running frozen certainly helps (get the system the way you want it and keep it that way) but to get this back almost OT I can see no speed benefit at all.

Something, either FD-ISR itself or another program or a conflict, is causing this slow down and I would be very surprised if a clean install ( followed by making an image) did not resolve it.

 

Peter

I don't see how this program can help speed up anything BUT

have been playing. The first time I used it to delete everything I was still left with 227 deleted references and it took a long time. Then a full delete took 1 hour and 15 mins. I rebooted - which I think is required - to clean the system and then turned on Returnil. After reboot I had 1 temp file when I checked.
Even so time to delete fully looked like it was going to still take 1 hour 15.

Good for privary, good for restoration but for speed improvements forget it.

with Ruturnil protected and using multiple Acronis Full images rather than FD-ISR I should only have to run this very rarely.