B&R 2012 Free differential slower than full!

Maybe someone can help me out here.. I did a full backup of my Win8 machine to a network share (about 360GB archived) and it took a little over 3 hours. When I run an differential backup (about 1GB archived), the backup takes over 6 hours!

I believe that I see the problem.. I was watching launcher.exe in task manager and as it neared the end, it said that it had I/O reads (from the network) of over 720GB.. it appears that the program reads the entire original archive twice. I do not have verification turned on, so I'm not sure why it's insisting on reading so much data to do a differential.. I thought Paragon used indexes for deciding what to back up. So I can see WHAT'S happening.. I just have no idea WHY.

Update.. I ran another full and then differential disk backup (4 partitions in disk mode).. back to back. The full created an archive of 324.4 GB and took 4 hours 41 minutes. The differential backup created an archive of 1.8 GB and took right at 5 hours. It still spends most of its time reading the original archive (and still seems to be reading it twice). What the heck is going on?? I'm already having to split the archives because of Windows' wonderful habit of dropping from 250 Mb/s over the network to less than 50 Mb/s on long archives (apparently a common problem with large backups to a Windows share.. found the solution on another backup companies' forum). Now THAT was causing 12 hour backups..

ANY help would be appreciated!

Thanks,
Rog

 

Just to get some clarification, are you running defrags after the backup has been run? and the Index is used for the incremental, I don't believe it is being used in the differential currently.

 

No defrags ran.. the operating environment is the same for the full and the differential. It just seems to read the entire full archive every time it does a differential, and it appears to be reading it twice (by the fact that the backup program reads twice the amount of data that make up the full archive.. according to task manager). The backups are actually quite small compared to the full.. they just take longer.

 

Here's an example.. I'm 5 hours into a differential backup (with another hour to go) of a total of 403.5GB of used space that will end up being ~4GB in size on disk.. the full is 324GB and took 4 hours 45 minutes.

For some reason, the "Approximate archive size" (in the progress messages) is saying 308.4GB.. no idea where that number is coming from. It has currently created 3.57GB worth of backup files.. and has read 675GB, mostly from the network (where the full archive is).

In the progress messages, says that it is "processing file" on the full archive twice.. once after the "Approximate archive size" message and then again after the "Data writing (buffered)" message".

These numbers just don't add up.. and neither does the 6 hours that it takes to write a 4GB backup file. The strangest part is the fact that it is reading so much data.. over twice the original archive.

I would hate to see what happened if I told it to check the archive after backup! I would end up with a 9+ hour differential backup!

I would like to figure this out.. I want to buy the full version (for incrementals), but not if it's this slow, too. I come from years of using Acronis TrueImage, but it has become too buggy lately to buy another version just for Win8. I thought Acronis was slow.. but it's nothing like this (it actually only takes Acronis 30 minutes to create a 3GB incremental off a 190GB full)!

 

Sure is quiet in here.. Are there only 10 people in the world running this software on their computers or something.. or are people just shy around here? I see that this message has been read over 170 times, yet there aren't even any "me too" or "not me" answers.

With the clumsiness of the software and lack of refinement of the GUI, I would have assumed that the bulk of the users of this software would be techies.. the people who usually do more than just lurk in forums.

 

I agree this forum is generally quiet and there aren't a lot of different people answering questions or even saying they have the same problem which is unfortunate.

I think it is safe to say that the Paragon users for whatever reason don't examine and push the program like the typical Acronis users do. A lot Paragon users never verify an archive it seems. If they did they would be beefing about the lack of a tick-box to automatically verify-after-creating without having to resort to a scripting language.

 

bump.