TI 11.8038 Very Slow

I'm currently at about 15 hours on a full backup of an 80GB drive to a Samba share on a Debian box. Is this normal for the first backup of that size?

Also, the TIB file it creates, are the incremental backups added to this, or are new files created? Is it trivial to include the incremental backups in a restore, or is it like ntbackup, where you have to go through every single backup period and restore individual files from that date/time?

Is this TIB file enough to restore the entire system with?

I'm sure some of this is in the documentation, but it's always good to get real world user testimony before committing to something.

 

I should add now that I just ran the same backup to another SATA drive in the machine, and it took less than 45 minutes. What is the problem here? I have a 100mb/s LAN, and the box serving shares via Samba has been tweaked and has a pretty good transfer rate for any file I throw at it.

 

How large is the final TIB file (in GB)?

Transfer over 100Mb LAN is a lot slower than an internal to internal backup.

An Incremental backup will create a new TIB file. The original Full backup image is not changed.

To restore to a specific point, you just need to select the Full or Incremental that you want and TI will restore the necessary images. You don't need to restore each one separately.

If you're not using the latest build of TI 11 (8,053 or 8,054) then you might update and see if that helps.

 

I think I've narrowed the speed issues down to a problem with Samba on the Debian box. SFTPs are much faster.

On the issue of incremental backups - is there not a way to restore the PC to its original state before a disaster from the full and incrementals without having to restore each one individually?

 

As I stated in the previous post, when you restore an Incremental backup, just select the one you want and restore it. TI will restore the Full image and any inbetween Incremental images automatically during the restoration.

 

Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

On the vers 11 home edition, I am trying to just back up all files on 120Gb IDE hd (H drive), to a 250Gb Sata II hd (I drive), I click onto the H drive and it takes about 2 hours to analyze it and then about another 2 hours on the 'processing, please wait' dialog box (so far, as it's still doing it) to process it and I haven't even inputted the destination drive yet ? ? ? ! ! !

This seems very slow - or is this normal ?

Os is win xp pro and NTFS on both hd's.

Any help much appreciated.

Joad.

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Is this a file and folders backup or is it an image of the drive?
Are you doing this while booted in Windows or using the recovery CD?
How much data is actually on the drive?
What does it mainly consist of? Music and video or other already compressed data?

In any case the times you quote are totally out of order and something needs to be fixed.

Xpilot

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a throughput indicator? (Something I've been suggesting since version 6....)

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Not sure what you mean here. Up to and including V10 imageing and recoveries have always shown progress bars and time estimates. Given that these estimates have usually been very pessimistic until the process has been running for several minutes.
There is also the Acronis log which shows accurate timings for the completed processes.
Having said that I do not see that an additional indicator could possibly improve the speed by any stretch of the imagination

Xpilot

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Thanks for the quick response - hopefully, this problem can get solved.

File and folders backup.

While in Windows.

90Gb

Mainly doc's and photo's - none compressed.

You're darned right it's totally out of order.

Joad.

 

I only have experience of making and restoring partition and whole drive images, I have never used file and folders though I have heard they are a bit slower but not that slow!
If H and I are both internal drives this should be quite a quick operation. If one or both the drives are external there could be an Acronis driver problem.

Of course a simple copy from one drive to the other may be a non-Acronis solution.
Hopefully someone with file and folders experience could take over from here.

Xpilot

 

Hopefully, but many thanks for your input.

I've got it set for high priority and normal compression and it's only just started the actual backup itself - it says 2 hours 45 minutes remaining ;-(

Not a good incentive for someone to buy it !

Joad.

 

Joad, your photos are already in a compressed format. If it is only your docs and photos you want to backup, simply copy the photos with Windows Explorer to the backup drive and if you want some compression on the docs, use the built-in Winzip in Windows. In any case it isn't necessary to use True Image for backing up those file types.
There's a lot to be said for keeping your photos in their native format.

 

One of the reasons that I tried ATI, is that I thought it would have been quicker than the usual 'copy and paste' job ;-(

Good point about the compressing photos part tho' - I wouldn't want them to be any more compressed than what they are already.

Ok, I'll copy and paste the items this time, but :

1. It's on my schedule within the next few days, to do an exact clone of my os from one internal hard drive to a partition on a another internal hard drive, when I reformat one of my other pc's - what is the easiest, most reliable and quickest way of doing it please ?

2. After I copy and paste the files and folders from one internal hd to another internal hd, is there any way of there being an automatic differential/incremental thing say, every week thereafter ?

The helps apreciated.

Joad.

 

An alternative to copying and pasting might be to create a simple batch file selecting only the folders that you want copied or updated. This is in addition to creating backups using True Image. I run this manually as I want the control but it could run scheduled using Windows Scheduled Tasks. In this example existing folders on the D: drive are first deleted and then the new are copied from the C: drive to the D: drive.

This is an example of the .txt file that I use to create the batch (.bat) file:

@ECHO Off
echo Starting Personal Transfer to drive D:, please wait...

RMDIR /S /Q "D:\0_Personal Batch Files (Copy)"
RMDIR /S /Q "D:\1_Home Computer (Copy)"
RMDIR /S /Q "D:\2_Maps (Copy)"
RMDIR /S /Q "D:\My Documents (Copy)"

XCOPY "C:\0_Personal Batch Files" "D:\0_Personal Batch Files (Copy)" /E /I /H
XCOPY "C:\1_Home Computer" "D:\1_Home Computer (Copy)" /E /I /H
XCOPY "C:\2_Maps" "D:\2_Maps (Copy)" /E /I /H
XCOPY "C:\Documents and Settings\[user name]\My Documents" "D:\My Documents (Copy)" /E /I /H
EXIT

Just a thought - works well for me.
Bruce

 

So, in order to restore a PC completely, would you have to have the System State AND full & incremental backup files, or will the full/incremental backup also restore the registry and system files?

BTW, I found out the on-board NVIDIA gigabit port was causing the issues I had with speed - no problems on a laptop that has a Broadcom chip, nor on the other port on my motherboard, which is Marvell-Yukon.

 

Karen Kenworthy's Replicator will do a good job of copying the entire data disk and will copy only the changed files the next time. It works exceptionally well and free for personal use. Lots of options.

http://www.karenware.com/powertools/ptreplicator.asp

 

Many thanks Bruce and Grover - it's appreciated.

Karens tool looks like a good bit of kit - I may use that for the data stuff and ATI for image backup - what do ya reckon to that ?

Anyone know how fast is Karens tool generally ? Say for 100Gb of files ?

Joad

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Specifically, I want a throughput indicator. (How many Megabytes per second is being imaged or copied.) Ghost had this in the DOS version! A throughput indicator would give users a way of DIRECTLY comparing how fast TrueImage is on different hardware, and would allow us to troubleshoot these issues much more easily. (I used to use Ghost's throughput indicator to tell when the network was saturated, as there was a noticeable and immediate drop in throughput when this happened.)

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Joad,
I think you will be pleased with the speed and accuracy of Karen's program. After the first copy, later copy is only for changes which is really fast.

 

Re: Vers 11 seems very slow ? ?

Many thanks Grover, just tried it and I tried to copy all contents from a partition to the whole of another hard drive, and I can't remember the exact figures, but there was a difference in the number of files and folders ;-(

Just trying True Image vers 10 (home) again, is there any way of just doing the above - without the need to create a new folder please ?

The helps appreciated.

Joad.

 

Hi Grover - Gave up with True Image keep taking almost an hour to analyze the partition and have now tried the tool you mentioned - what a brill bit of kit - backed up 90Gb of files in 30 minutes!! Plus not having to keep creating a folder for them either is a very nice bonus.

A couple of things, how do you open up the tool without it going ahead with a task ? I double click on the shortcut icon to open it up and it wants to copy the 90Gb again ?

Also, how do you tell it to copy everything in the file, without any exclusions? It didn't affect me this time, but would prefer for it to not have any exclusions.

Any help much appreciated.

Joad.

 

I've gotta say that after the last round of really frustrating TI 11 errors, I'm fast becoming a born-again fan of XCOPY. I do something similar to you with batch files. One difference is that I make heavy use of redirection via ">" to send date-time stamps and all other message outputs from XCOPY to log files. I do this mainly because I also use the /C option, which basically means, "if something happens, just keep going...". I need those log files to tell me what got done and what didn't.

The other thing I do is make use of the /D option with no date-time strings attached. This allegedly only copies newer files to the destination. It seems to work OK. I gave up messing with the archive bits because I could never keep things straight with those when using XCOPY in batch files.

I had been using XCOPY in emergencies just to make sure I had some kind of backup somewhere when Acronis failed me. I'm thinking about making it the permanent solution. Data copies are good enough for me. I suppose if I was an image backup freak and cared about boot sectors, hidden partitions, etc, I might look for something else.

For now, though, my money is going back on XCOPY.

Have a good one,

 

They won't get more compressed. In fact, due to the overhead, the total bytes might be a bit more than if compression is turned off when backing up mp3, mp4, jpg and other compressed objects.