is this slow, in your opinion

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by marcb11, Feb 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    It took me 12 hours to restore 30 gigs of data using True Image 9.0. I updated the product one week ago. Slowest restore I've ever seen (my computer is 1 year old). Totally unacceptable!
     
  2. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Yes, it seems extremely slow, especially since it takes me about 20 minutes to restore the same amount of data. That's from SATA to SATA internals. However, a little more information might help. Was the restore done from the linux environment or from safe mode? What kind of media was the image stored on? Possibly an external hdd? CD or DVD? Probably not. Another internal drive? Did this include a prerestore verification?

    Terry
     
  3. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    25,885
    Hello marcb11,

    Thank you for choosing Acronis Disk Backup Software.

    Could you please provide us with the following information?

    - What build number of Acronis True Image 9.0 do you use?

    You can find the full version name and build number by going to Help -> About... menu in the main program window;

    - Where do you store your image?

    - Describe the way you have restored the image in detail.

    Thank you.
    --
    Alexey Popov
     
  4. Allen L.

    Allen L. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    335
    Location:
    -Close-
    I'm always amazed at the posters that have maybe 1-5 total posts. They always seem to post negative, and sometimes exaggerated sounding statements. If it took this poster that long to restore the image on his 'machine', he should not be able to post an answer to this thread until, at the very earliest, later today because of the extreme slowness of whatever kind of operating system and computer he is using.

    Just my observation and analysis...also just wondering how long it took to create that image? Also some people can make horribly bad decisions in chosing what kind of 'puter to purchase. Seems this one is a tad slow. ;)

    ...Allen :rolleyes:
     
  5. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    Hello,

    Thanks for the reponse.

    I have a HP Machine 2.7 Ghz processor.

    I two hard drives on this machine. Both are identical and I store images on Drive 2 (about 50% space available).

    This is Acronis 9.0 build 2,337.

    I think it took about 3 hours to image the partition (c:drive hd1 30 gigs). It took 12 hours to restore (I know that for sure). HD2 to HD1.

    Fastest method.. no super compression or anything like that.

    Machine crawled along during the restore. Seemed like it was locked but I did not touch anything (e.g. control-alt-del). It seems to me that it was about 5or 6 times slower than Acronis 6.0 or 7.0 (typically around 2 to 3 hours to restore same partition).

    The only thing I did differently, and this may be the reason, is that pulled 1 partition from the image on the restore, not the entire image file (which typically includes 3 partitions). Since it was my C: on the restore, the process performed outside of windows after reboot. Could be the sorting out of the file on the restore (I know nothing about these processes) to pull the single partition could have slowed it down. Or it could be XP SP2 that creates the problem.

    I am looking at other backup software. I tried my old Norton program, it is too unstable. I tried something called Exact Image (1 1/2 to image entire HD,
    about an hour to restore C only). Big problem however... it can't restore without an XP start (Dos recovery without does not work). So that is out.

    Any thoughts?
     
  6. TheWeaz

    TheWeaz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,562
    This may not be your case at all, but this happened to me:
    Backups that usually were taking 13 minutes started taking hours for no apparent reason. I went into Device Manager and looked at the Advanced Settings under the IDE Channel properties. One of the drives had been knocked down to PIO mode. I had to uninstall the channel and reboot to get it back to Ultra DMA mode.
     
  7. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    I don't think that is it. I don't see an IDE Channel listing in the device manager.
     
  8. noonie

    noonie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Posts:
    299
    A lot of people believe that Ti is the "solve all do all" in imaging and backup software. Well for some people it might be, probably because they are the majority, casual pc users, and rightfully so. There should be no need for the average user to be able to make their system dance.

    Ti is one of the best cloning/imaging programs out there, if it supports your hardware. It is not, however the best at everything by that I'm referring to data.

    Put data on extra drives, mirrors, optical etc.
    Use Ti for imaging your os and program drive. With the low cost of hdrives, you can just drag and drop your data to additional drives. No software needed.

    Using the boot cd (as slow as it gets) on an average machine, I can do a complete restore in 40 min.
     
  9. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    You may have already done this, so forgive me if you have. This is how it works in my system. Is this what you tried (or something similar)?

    Right click My Computer > Properties > Device Manager > IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers > Primary IDE Channel > right click > Properties > Advanced Settings.

    Terry
     
  10. TheWeaz

    TheWeaz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,562
    Yeah, what Terry said :ouch:
    Sorry, I left out the ATA/ATAPI bit. o_O
     
  11. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Could be that marcb11's computer uses SATA drives. In which case they will probably be shown as SCSI devices and the UDMA mode wont be adjustable.

    If they are SATA drives then it would be interesting to hear what SATA controller chipset his HP uses and whether it is properly supported by the device drivers on Linux based rescue CD.

    Regards
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2006
  12. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I use two SATA drives (SiI 3114 controller, which has always worked perfectly) and no IDE drives. When you check the Device Manger it lists my SCSI and RAID controllers as expected, but still shows IDE devices in UDMA Mode 4, under Primary IDE Channel. I'm not bright enough to know why o_O

    Terry
     
  13. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Hi Terry,

    Do you have a CD or DVD drive? If so, which controller is it connected to? If it's connected to the primary IDE channel, then that's what is operating at UDMA 4 not your SATA drives (these usually operate at UDMA 6).

    Regards
     
  14. backman

    backman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    90
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I'm sure you're right. I have 2 DVD-RW drives. One is SATA, but the other IS connected to an IDE controller. I had forgotten that.

    Terry
     
  15. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    All I see is SCSI and RAID controllers as a listing.
     
  16. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    25,885
    Hello marcb11,

    Thank you for choosing Acronis Disk Backup Software.

    Please create the bootable rescue media with Acronis True Image 9.0, boot your computer from it and try to restore your image in rescue mode.

    If the problem still persists, please create Acronis Report and Linux system information (sysinfo.txt) as it is described in Acronis Help Post.

    Please create an account, then log in and submit a request for technical support. Attach all the collected files and information to your request along with the step-by-step description of the actions taken before the problem appears and the link to this thread. We will investigate the problem and try to provide you with the solution.

    Thank you.
    --
    Tatyana Tsyngaeva
     
  17. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    I've spent at least 4 full days trying to sort out this defective program. I have put in a refund request with sales. I am trying to reinstall 7.0 but I get a "cannot find hard drive" error. I am trying to find any 7.0 updates.... but the registration system makes everything impossible (new password, expired link, new password, expired link). I finally got some help on the chat line for a general support number without registration.

    What is the problem with this company? I have destroyed my 9.0.

    Incidentally the boot disk on 9.0 fails to start.
     
  18. TheWeaz

    TheWeaz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,562
    I would still not rule out hardware problems (HD, cables, Controller, power).
    Have you checked the Event Viewer for problems? Have you run a full Scan Disk for all the drives? Any errors in the TI log?
     
  19. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    I sure wouldn't either!!
     
  20. wysocki

    wysocki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    18
    I have 3 SATA drives in my computer and one IDE drive. I did a full image backup to the IDE (80gb Hitachi Deskstar) yesterday to test the system and it took about 15 minutes for about 50gb from my C: drive. I then replaced that IDE drive with a Maxtor 80gb drive and the same backup took over 4 hours! I'm running a dual core 3.6ghz machine with 2g ram and XPsp2 with latest TI. During the backup I noticed the first processor was pegged out at 100% while the other was idling at 2% (shouldn't they be about the same?).

    I saw this thread and checked my IDE properties as you describe. Sure enough it was PIO. It wouldn't change to DMA until I jumpered the drive as a master, then it went to DMA. However, the backup still says 4 hours left when I try it! If I change the backup to one of the SATA drives, it says 15 minutes left. I experimented just doing a Windows "copy" of a 1gb file from one of my drives to all the other drives. The results are below. Copying to the Maxtor IDE drive went at 3mb/s and copying to a SATA drive went as high as 49mb/s! Don't know if the IDE is slow or the SATA is unusually fast, but there's a BIG difference right there. I'll report back after I experiment more.

    Time Copying 1gb file from F: to other drives:

    C: 0:20 @49.0mb/s (SATA Western Digital 7200 rpm 300gb)
    D: 0:32 @31.5mb/s (SATA Western Digital 5400 rpm 160gb)
    E: 5:46 @02.9mb/s (IDE Maxtor 80gb)
    E: 0:22 @47.9mb/s (IDE WD 200gb)

    Note: Edited to add Last sample. Another IDE drive appears as fast as SATA drives. Drive diagnostics show no problem. Now whato_O
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2006
  21. Allen L.

    Allen L. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    335
    Location:
    -Close-
    Don't know what kind of chipset is in your motherboard, but you might want to check and see if your running certain Intel chipsets.

    This is what I'm speaking of:
    Take a look at these links:
    Code:
    http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009293.htm 
    The below link will be to identify your chipset...of course if your not running an intel chipset, this might not apply. I found it speeded up my IDE speeds in an older, spare Dell computer, when it started not 'holding' DMA settings. They would run in PIO and then not hold the DMA setting on reboot.
    Code:
    http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/cs-009245.htm 
    Can't see any harm in your checking out these links, as one of them will identify the chipset on your motherboard if your not certain. If you do find you have the matching chipset, try this out and see if it helps.

    ...Allen
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2006
  22. wysocki

    wysocki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Posts:
    18
    I thought we had a winner here since my Intel 955x Express chipset is the same one in your example! Unfortunately, the Accellerator only supports the 810 thru 860 chipsets.:mad:

    I suppose Intel fixed the issue since it doesn't apply to the newer mobo's? BTW: I just tried a WD 200gb IDE drive in that spot. Transfer time was 0:22 @47.9mb/s!! FAST! So much for IDE being slower in general. I guess it has to do with the individual drive. I ran the Maxtor diagnostics disk on the slow 80gb disk and it shows no errors.
     
  23. seekforever

    seekforever Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Posts:
    4,751
    Your chipset is listed via the second link. I think Intel changed the Accelerator name for later versions.

    Your 3MB/s number is very low. More typical transfer rates are in the 20MB/s range. Run free HD tach and see what you get. SATA drives are not much, if any, faster than UDMA5,6 because the buss can't handle anything more. PCI can't even run a gigabit LAN card at full speed.
     
  24. Allen L.

    Allen L. Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    335
    Location:
    -Close-
    The later boards are use the Accelerator Raid Edition...I have it installed in my present computer that uses an Intel D875PBZ board that support raid configurations.
     
  25. marcb11

    marcb11 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Posts:
    6
    Apparently the 12 hour restore of 30 gigs with Acronis 9 (build 2337) was due to a failing hard disk. I found that out 2 days ago. So Acronis 9 is not that horrible, but certainly not great either. The new features are useful, but the program continues to be so slow.

    I did a restore of 30 gigs (HD2 to HD1) with Acronis 9, it took 3.5 hours. I pulled it off, and did a restore of the same 30 gigs (written yesterday with Acronis 7, same compression, almost identical content except for the Acronis version), and it took 35 minutes. I did these restores yesterday, back to back. I tried them from a rescue boot, same results. Acronis 9 - 3.5 hours, Acronis 7 - 35 minutes.

    So its back to Acronis 7 for sure. So my request for a refund stands.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.