Former Ghost User

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by writedom, Jul 15, 2006.

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

    writedom Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    57
    I have been somewhat satisfied with the performance of ATI but I have a couple qustions:

    1. Why does it take so long for an image to be created (Secure Zone)? For example, when I create an image to another partition with ghost it takes about 4 minutes to create and about the same amount of time to restore. ATI takes way over 20 minutes each way.

    2. Backups with ATI are very straight forward. However, restorations are drawn-out. All the attempts to make the process simpler has actually made the process more difficult. Am I the only one that feels this way?

    3. The secure zone is a great concept but imagine this:

    Your kid boots the computer and presses F11.
    Starts ATI and deletes your "SECURE ZONE".

    Where is the password protectiono_Oo_O?
     
  2. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    On my system earlier builds of TI 9 used to take about 10 minutes longer than Ghost 10 for a full backup and verify. More recent buils of TI take a bit over an hour longer. But TI's incremental updates have improved, go figger!
     
  3. Xpilot

    Xpilot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Posts:
    2,318

    Do you create your images when booted from the recovery CD or by running the creation in the background of Windows? I find running while in Windows considerable faster and in any case it happens automatically when I am at lunch :))

    I respectfully suggest that you look to your overall computer security. The loss of a set of backup images might be the least of you worries. If you are only storing your backups in one place you may wish to reconsider that as well.

    Xpilot
     
  4. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    I did not realiize that the TI Scheduler was so sophisticated that it can sense the activity in one's digestive system!

    I always run manual backups, oft at meal times, when I an running errands, when I am vegging out by a TV, or, on those rare instances that I get to bed.

    Of course, some daze I'm out to lunch anyway.
     
  5. Xpilot

    Xpilot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Posts:
    2,318
    Yes!I had noticed [​IMG]
     
  6. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    25,885
    Hello writedom,

    Thank you for your interest in Acronis True Image

    Please note, that if you are not satisfied with the backup\restore speed, first of all, please make sure you use the latest build of the program, which is available on our web site at http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/updates/. To get access to updates you should register your software first at
    http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/registration/. Please disable any download managers, Internet download/connection boosters, etc. before the download.

    If it doesn't help could you please try to perform your backup\restore with the help of Acronis Rescue Media.

    Please post all your wishes and suggestions (e.g. password protection and simplification of restore process) concerning Acronis backup software
    here.

    Thank you.
    --
    Fedor Kurbatov
     
  7. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802

    I, and I believe a number of other folkes, have reported that the more recent releases of TI are slower than earlier builds of TI 9 for FULL backups, and, at least, I noted that the more recent builds are faster for incremental backups.

    Such changes can occur only as a result of explicit changes made to TI.

    What has changed in 3677 to convince us that it is any faster than 3633 or 3567? 2337 was much faster than 3567 or 3633.
     
  8. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    This slow down issue raises it's ugly head periodically, but I don't believe it is as pandemic as you may believe. I really have no idea what the cause may be on your particular machine, but my backup speeds have remained fairly constant since version 7.x.

    For example, my latest backup/verify effort took 43 minutes. That represents a normally compressed image of 35 GB, written in 21 minutes and verified in 22. That seems pretty reasonable to me and has not changed much (proportionally) since version 7, except to get slightly faster.

    Since I quit using the other backup software long ago, because it was never reliable for me, I have no way to compare speeds. I can only say that the speed has been consistent through all versions I have used. It may be slow or may be fast, but has always been consistently so.

    Terry

    BTW, my latest backups were made with both 3677 and 3694. They were about the same. No statistical significance between the two.

    Terry
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2006
  9. jeremyotten

    jeremyotten Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Posts:
    684
    Could you post your system specs...
     
  10. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Sure jeremyotten, if I can remember them :D I usually build my own machines, use them for a couple of years and when I feel the "need" for more power, I pass the old one to my wife and I build a new one. This machine is nearing the end of it's cycle. It will probably be replaced after Vista becomes available.

    So anyway...
    ABIT KV8-MAX3 mobo
    1 GB Mushkin RAM don't remember the exact type, but was matched to the mobo with no OC
    System hdd is a 200 GB SATA Maxtor on a SiI 3114 controller, as I recall.
    Storage hdd is internal 400 GB IDE Maxtor. Image of the system disc was made under Windows to the 400 GB IDE. The times I posted above reflect that.
    Processor is AMD64 3200+

    If you want more info, just ask. Happy to oblige. I'm not thinking too clearly today because I home from work with a cold :'(

    Oh and just for the record, I use a Logitech wireless mouse that I have never had any issue with either.

    I seem to be one of the lucky ones that skate through most of the known issues. We'll see if I can still say that when I follow my usual upgrade path next year.

    Regards,

    Terry
     
  11. furballi

    furballi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Posts:
    263
    A reasonable processing speed without pagefile is approximately 1200 to 1500MB/min for a +3GHz system. If the processing speed is slower with the boot CD, then the problem is problaby coming from the data stored on the boot CD. Try running the imaging software with the boot CD that was created with the older version of TI.
     
  12. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    I have not been using tI that long.
    Purchased 1st week of March 2006.

    Not much has changed on my PC since then.

    But the thing I have been pointing out is how much TI 9 has gotten relative to Ghost 10.

    Back in March,, using build 2337, TI tok only about 10 minutes more than Ghost for a full backup. Now, it's about an hour more. Something has changed in TI.
     
  13. storage_man

    storage_man Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Posts:
    91
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    I have been a TI user for almost 2 years and have benchmarked many Build's in version 8 and now have had an opportunity to benchmark (in a consistent environment) Ver 9. Here is a comparison of previous versions versus the new. The Partition in question is WIN/XP Pro SP2. It also only contains PROGRAMS. All data are on other partitions.

    DeskTop System

    2.00 gigahertz AMD Athlon XP
    ASUSTeK Computer INC. A7N8X2.0 REV 1.xx
    Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
    512 Megabytes Memory

    Primary HDD IDE:

    WDC WD800JB-00ETA0 [Hard drive] (80.03 GB) (3 Logical Partitions)

    USB 2.0 external HDD:

    WDC WD12 00JB-00CRA1 USB Device [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) (1 Logical Partitions)

    Benchmark:
    Image backup with Acronis TI 8 from Partition 1 of Primary drive 13.7gb total
    with 5.7gb active to Partition 1 of External USB drive with High Compression.

    * Backup total gb backed up = 5.94gb (One partition only)
    ** Backup total gb backed up = 6.78gb (One partition only)

    Results:
    Ver 8.0
    Release 826: Elapsed time = 11:20 Output size = 2.8gb mb/min = 500.0
    Release 889: Elapsed time = 11:20 Output size = 2.8gb mb/min = 500.0
    Bart-PE 791: Elapsed time = Cancelled after 1 hour with only 2% complete
    * Release 937:
    * WinXP: Elapsed time = 07:37 Output size = 2.8gb mb/min = 781.6
    *TI/SAE: Elapsed time = 12:08 Output size = 2.8gb mb/min = 490.9
    Ver 9.0
    **Release 3677:
    ** WinXP: Elapsed time = 09:00 Output size = 1.5gb mb/min = 753.3
    **TI/SAE: Elapsed time = 13:44 Output size = 1.5gb mb/min = 493.0

    As you can see things are still close as far as total thruput. In fact MB/Min are up a little from Ver 8 when using the SAE environment. Note this is all on the same hardware as the earlier benchmarks.

    I hope this helps you with your thoughts on performance.

    Storage_man
     
  14. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Build 3567 introduced a completely different imaging/restore engine, including a non backward compatible image file structure.
     
  15. Howard Kaikow

    Howard Kaikow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Posts:
    2,802
    Then the problem is in the performance of the engine.

    TI really needs to look at their performance relative to Ghost, that's the real problem.

    For example, all my internal drives are SCSI. TI may have modified the way it deals with SCSI. Would not surprise me at all.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.