FDISR - Archive/Restore with USB 2.0 Harddisk

Discussion in 'FirstDefense-ISR Forum' started by ErikAlbert, Jun 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I finally have my external harddisk and I did some tests for Archiving/Restoring

    Test-1 using WD Raptor WD740GD HDD 74gb 10000rpm SATA 8mb Cache 4.5ms

    Archiving Active Snapshot to Archived Snapshot (.arx) : 3.83 gb in 5m28s
    Restoring Archived Snapshot (.arx) to New Snapshot : 3,83 gb in 4m46s

    Test-2 using External HDD Seagate 160GB USB 2.0 7200RPM 8MB

    Archiving Active Snapshot to Archived Snapshot (.arx) : 3.83 gb in 6m51s
    Restoring Archived Snapshot (.arx) to New Snapshot : 3,83 gb in 7m4s

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Seagate User Manual also says about transfer rates :
    USB 1.1 = 12 Mbits/sec.
    USB 2.0 = 480 Mbits/sec.
    Firewire (IEEE 1394a) = 400 Mbits/sec

    So USB 2.0 seems to be the fastest one.
     
  2. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    And your archive restore went at about the rate of 78 Mbits/sec which seems about par despite the potential of USB 2.0 supposedly being 480 Mbits/sec. I forget where the bottleneck is likely to be.

    Does your new external also work by firewire and do you have any interest in testing the rate of that ?

    BTW, I checked the timing of a complete IFW image I did of my laptop this afternoon to my external WD1200U017 120GB USB 2.0 Passport Drive and calculate a rate of about 132 Mbits/sec based on the compressed IFW files and that's about the fastest I ever see on all of my USB 2 stuff.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2006
  3. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Yes it's a double package, but I can't use that cable. It's a weird plug and I don't have a socket for it.
     
  4. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Ah, yes, I forgot to ask if you had a firewire port on your machine.
     
  5. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I didn't do the test for timing. I just wanted to know if my external harddisk is working properly. I have it just 1/2 day and I have to try my new printer too.
    As far as I remember Peter asked this once to test the time also, that's why I wrote them down.
     
  6. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    ;) Well, I thought commenting on your timing and seeing that others have approximately the same timing would be helpful in that regard.

    If I had posted that I wrote 38 GB to my external HDD at a rate of 479 Mbits/sec, that may have caused some doubt in your mind as to whether your new drive was working properly, wouldn't it ?
     
  7. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I'm tired, can't think straight anymore. Tomorrow another day. :)
     
  8. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    'k begrijp -- slaap wel.
     
  9. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,059

    Again your tests are very informative. I can use relate to the above statement.

    Pete
     
  10. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Let's throw a party! :D
     
  11. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    Crofttk,

    1 Mbit/second = 122 KiloBytes/second
    480 Mbits/second = 58,560 KiloBytes/second
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbit

    In theory archiving would take 69 seconds :
    3.83 GigaBytes x 1024 x 1024 = 4,016,046 KiloBytes
    4,016,046 KiloBytes / 58,560 = 69 seconds

    In reality using WD-Raptor, archiving took 328 seconds :
    5 minuts 28 seconds = (5 minuts x 60 seconds) + 28 seconds = 328 seconds
    4,016,046 KiloBytes / 328 seconds = 12,244 KiloBytes/second

    In reality using Seagate, archiving took 411 seconds :
    6 minuts 51 seconds = (6 minuts x 60 seconds) + 51 seconds = 411 seconds
    4,016,046 KiloBytes / 411 seconds = 9,771 KiloBytes/second

    The difference between "WD-Raptor" and "Seagate" is acceptable, because Seagate is slower than WD-Raptor.
    However the difference between "WD-Raptor/Seagate" and "in theory" is ridiculous.
    There must be something wrong with that theoretical transfer rate of 480Mbits/second or all my calculations are wrong. :D

    There is nothing wrong with my new Seagate External Harddisk either, which is proven by the transfer rate of WD-Raptor.
     
  12. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Your calculations agree with mine (except I calculated for the restore of the archive) so it's either we're both right or we're both wrong. I think, however, if you do some checking around, compared to many other folks and their tests, there's nothing really that unusual about your 80Mbit/sec transfer rate and the theoretical transfer rate of 480 Mbits/sec IS correct for 480Mbits/sec. There are actually logical reasons why you only get 1/6 of the theoretical rate but I'm just not expert or informed enough to tell you what they are, I suspect that some other part of ours systems are the bottleneck -- does the 480Mbits/sec mean 240 Mbits/sec in each direction simultaneously ? -- I'm sure someone out there has an explanation. Also, this begs the question, what exactly is meant by this theoretical transfer rate -- is it EVER achieved ANYWHERE ?
    Do I understand correctly that you say the external must be OK because the WD-Raptor transferred at normal speed ?
     
  13. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2006
  14. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    My 1/6 of the theoretical transfer rate looks strange and maybe my other hardware components are responsible for that, but I'm not an expert either. Maybe I've to do some research on that, if I'm able to understand all that stuff LOL.

    I don't think that archiving or restoring make a big difference in our calculations. FDISR changes the transfer speed constantly on the processing screen. So they are grosso modo the same.

    My WD-Raptor needs 328 seconds and my Seagate needs 411 seconds. That's a fact.
    I know that Seagate has to be slower than WD-Raptor considering their hardware specifications, which are quite different.
    That's explains the difference of 83 seconds and that's why I assume there is nothing wrong with my Seagate.
    If there is a problem in the transfer rate, it must be something else than my harddisks.

    I have 4 USB-sockets on the backside of my computer case and 2 USB-sockets in the frontside.
    At this moment I use 1 USB-socket for my printer and 1 USB-socket for my Seagate Harddisk, both one the backside.
    All 6 USB-sockets look the same, so I assume you can use any USB-socket to connect any hardware that requires a USB-connection.
    In the past it was much easier for me, because all sockets where different and each wire has a specific plug.
    I know my explanation sounds like a newbie, but I don't use my computer to study hardware. I have other things to do and I don't get much support of our computer department either, because our computer people work mainly for mainframes and they consider pc's as toys.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2006
  15. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    HeY @E-A
    isn't it great to have these tools set-up like this?
    So much configurability with back-up and storage options.

    Is your new external HD easily removeable from case?
    (can use external HD to replace Internal if req. I have 2 WD for ease of swapping if req. Have tried it, not too hard)

    You have similar set-up to me now.
    LOL I have USB cables going in about 18 different directions.
    I specifically made my local techy build the box with all possible USB ports.
    I am almost afraid to look under the desk now. :eek:

    Dependent on USB 'A" v "B" plugs the cables are interchangeable and reversible.

    Onr of the limitations for USB cables (not dissimilar to other cables) is their length: longer cable = slower transfer times, there are cables of varying quality as well.

    Good luck with new equipment.
    Get GOOD power surge protector: wrecked my box once before because of that. Lost everything.

    Heh: NOW get BING for partition managemnt for all that HD space. soon follows will ditch ATI for IFD/IFW. LOL. Just teasing. :D

    It is remarkable that we can move GB of data at such astonishing speed and HAve HD of 1TB available.

    I remember thinking "how am I going to fill 550mb" on one early box.
    Regards

    PS
    next step is ot get mobo/bios that allows booting from USB and can then truly have many separate set-ups sharing one CPU.
    That will be the one of my prime considerations when current box fails/falls apart. Current box has been bulletproof (even with me fooling with innards) for nearly three years.

    Check with Blackspear for what configurations he gibes his customers. I would suspect he is right at cutting edge>

    LBD
     
  16. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Hah ! I remember the astronomical leap from a 20 MB hard drive to a 32 MB hard drive (plus walking 6 miles to school.... in the snow ..... in my bare feet .....and it was uphill.....BOTH WAYS !):p
     
  17. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Good point. Also, regarding front versus back USB ports, on some machines, particularly older ones, the ports could be a mixture of USB1.1 and USB2 ports. However, in Erik's case, he obviously isn't being throttled by USB1.1 limitations.
    You can (within the boundaries of plug type that LBD mentioned), but you may have the USB1.1/USB2 speed difference to be aware of and you won't pick that up visually unless they are actually marked or tagged that way. Of course, you may be fortunate enough that ALL of your USB ports are 2.0.

    Another caution, which may not apply to Erik, beware hooking an external drive up to a port on an external hub. Some drives/hardware don't like it like that.
     
  18. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    My cables aren't long and this is a new computer, bought in 2006, so I don't think I have USB 1.1 either and no external hub here. Printer allows a 3 metre cable. I took the shorter one, much less than 3 metres.
    I just checked my motherboard, nothing but USB 2.0.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2006
  19. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    They look the same, but it could be quite possible that the front ports support only USB 1.1 while the back ports support USB 2.0.
    You could find that information in the manual of your mainboard.
    Maybe there is also some utility that shows you the specs of your USB ports.
     
  20. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    All timings don't include manual actions of the user.
    Take a very good look at these tests and timings, it's a very interesting comparision between FDISR and ATI.

    My system partition [C:] has 3 snapshots of 3.06gb + 3.87gb + 3.87gb

    FDISR :
    Archive Active Snapshot TO Seagate Archived Snapshot (.arx) took 6m23s
    Archiving 3 snapshots would take = 18m42s

    ATI :
    Backup Partition [C:] TO Seagate Backup File (.tib) took 10m05s
    But keep in mind that ATI backups all 3 snapshots.

    So FDISR is faster for archiving ONE snapshot, but slower than ATI, if you archive 3 snapshots.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDISR :
    Restore Seagate Archived Snapshot (.arx) TO New Snapshot took 7m33
    Restoring 3 snapshots would take = 21m25s

    ATI :
    Recover Seagate Backup File (.tib) TO Partition [C:] took 34m18s
    That is a very long time for a recovery and rather disappointing.

    So restoring with FDISR is always much faster than ATI.
    Restoring snapshots takes longer than archiving snapshots.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was very disappointed in the recovery time (34m18s) of a Seagate Backup File (.tib).
    So I tried another method in two steps :
    1. I copy/paste the .tib-file from my Seagate Harddisk to my data partition [D:] and that took 3m34s
    2. I recovered the .tib-file from data partition [D:] to my system partition [C:], using ATI, and that took 8m24s
    3m34s + 8m24s = 11m58s, which is alot faster than 34m18s and even faster than FDISR.
    This could be a good tip for BING/IFW/IFD-users also.
     
  21. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Did you check the integrity of the image first? That would almost double the required time.
     
  22. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    @crofftk
    LOL
    We couldn't afford feet till I was 15 !!
    LOL :)
     
  23. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    In the past I did, but not anymore since I have Seagate.
    I validate the image after backup.
    I don't validate the image anymore before recovery. So the recovery test wasn't validated.
    Since the recovery is the slowest activity, compared with backup, I didn't want to make recovery slower than it already was.
    I asked Acronis Forum for help, but the question is still not answered although the support bill has been paid. :)

    EDIT:
    The copy/paste lasts only 3m34s which proves the USB connection works properly and is 1/2 of the theoretical speed.
    Why isn't that speed possible with ATI ? That's the CRUCIAL question.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2006
  24. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I did a reference test for you.

    My internal system disk is a PATA Western Digital WD1200JB-00FUA0. (120 GB)
    My USB disk is an old PATA Western Digital WD200BB-00A4A1 (20 GB), put in an external enclosure supporting USB 2.
    I booted into ATI from CD both times.
    Timed with a watch.

    Creating an image of my system disk (4,6 GB data) took less than 8 minutes.
    I verified the image without timing that.
    I rebooted again into the ATI on CD.
    I restored the 'whole disk' in 5 minutes.

    ErikAlbert, since your internal disk is SATA, I wonder if you create the image in Windows, using Windows SATA drivers, and restore with a different driver of ATI when you boot from CD?
     
  25. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    I use the Acronis Rescue CD only in extreme situations and that usually means that I can't use Acronis True Image (ATI)
    on my system partition [C:] anymore whatever the reason may be.

    So for normal backup AND restore activities I always use ATI, using the Windows SATA drivers.
    The only difference with the past is, that I use a Seagate External Harddisk as backup/restore medium
    instead of my second internal WD-Raptor.
    I'm not complaining about the backup, it's the restore that bothers me, 34 minuts is too long.
    I found a solution to make it 12 minuts, but that is a workaround I don't like.
    I prefer to use a software in a normal way without tricks.

    Thanks for doing some tests, I measure my timings between the "Proceed"-button to start backup/restore and
    the "OK"-button, when the job is finished. I hope you do it the same way. The manual actions or not included in my timings.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.