my search for best disk imaging software

Hi Brian, I'm sure that's all true - however, I'm using a 4-year old laptop (ATA/100 5400rpm HDD) and a 5-year old desktop (SATA1 7200rpm HDDs) which just have Firewire & USB2 ports, and I use the latter for backing up to an external HDD. Now that I'm retired, that equipment will just have to do!

 

Join the club.

My new SATA HDs are about 3 years "newer" than the old ones. On transfer rates, they are twice as fast. All are SATA 2.

 

Drive Snapshot allows you to do this but you would need to run it in command line mode. Is that the same with the floppy version of IFW?

Do you have a problem with IFW? Otherwise, I would have thought it should do the job well for you .

Graham

 

I hate you!!!

 

Graham,

IFW has to revert to IFD (DOS) to perform system restores, but IFD (on either FD or CD) is 'menu-driven' and not command-line oriented - as is DS' DOS restore operations (although markymoo's Drive Snap remedies that).

If I had to use DS' DOS FD to restore my images I wouldn't use DS!!! But (as you know) DS' portability actually makes restoring a pleasure after booting up into a 'PE' environment.

Aaron

 

Thanks for the info. I've got a license for IFW and have used the IFD CD but I wasn't sure if the floppy version had the GUI as well.

Yes, another good imaging app which doesn't get many mentions here is Active Disk Image. It is very capable but what I particularly like is it's recovery CD which is probably one of the best I have used and which I now use for my DS imaging in preference to BartPE.

Graham

 

I've never used Active Disk Image, but isn't that an expensive solution just to bootup and run DS?

 

I’ve just come across this thread and noticed your posting in regards Macrium Reflect. I don’t use DVD’s for backup purposes normally but after reading your post I decided to give it a try. I should mention that I’m using XP Home SP3 and have the full paid version of MR.

First I tried making a file image onto a DVD, which worked correctly and allowed me to mount and explore the file image, all without any problems. I then started to burn a full drive image onto DVD’s the procedure started and was well into making the image when I cancelled the operation due to the time factor (backup was going to take a number of hours to complete). Looking at the DVD afterwards the cancelled file was showing okay.

In regards the message you received I wonder if this was because you were using a trial version of MR? Anyway, to ease yours, and anyone else’s concern in regards MR and DVD burning, I can assure everyone using XP that MR does indeed burn onto DVD’s but why anyone would want to beats me.

 

Now that you mention it......yes. But that wasn't the original plan .

Graham

 

I use active boot disk to restore Drive snapshot, both of them are very fast.

 

Firewire's architecture is superior to that of USB-2, so as your PCs have Firewire ports, if your external drive has a Firewire port in addition to the USB-2 port you would definitely get faster disk I/O using Firewire!

 

My external drive is just USB. But I thought that USB2 was the faster of the two at 480mbs vs. Firewire's 400mbs.

 

In theory, that's true but, as appster mentioned, firewire's architecture is superior.......lower system overhead = faster real-world performance.

 

I don't have Firewire. What actual transfer rate (in MB/sec) do you get when transferring a large file?

 

Results of an independent test of FireWire vs. USB 2.0 (read/write tests to the same hard drive using FireWire and then USB 2.0). The test was repeated using a different PC and external hard drive - the results were similar.

Read Test:
• 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
• 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
• 5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
• 160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

The facts are that FireWire does a good job of maintaining its rated throughput of 400Mb/s whereas USB 2.0 can only hit its rated throughput of 480Mb/s in short bursts. USB 2.0 doesn't even come close to maintaining it's rated throughput (because it's architecture results in much greater overhead than FireWire).

 

appster,

Thanks. I'd still like a MB/sec rate from someone. Transferring a large file from an internal HD to their Firewire external HD. Surely someone can do this.

 

That's no problem Brian, but I won't be able to get to it for a couple of days. I'll make 2 identical image-backups of my system drive to my external drive, first using a Firewire connection and then a USB 2.0 connection. Upon completion I'll simply calculate the average transer-rates* by dividing the total bytes transferred by the time that each backup takes. Do you have a preference as to whether I use Drive Snapshot or Acronis True Image for the test?

* These rates will of course include the HDD read-write times and the imaging program's algorithm overhead.

 

Thanks again, Appster. I'd prefer you got any software out of the picture as it will give a lower transfer rate. Just copy a few GB backwards and forwards between the two HDs and do the maths.

I've done this several times with USB2 and it averages 25 MB/sec. The highest was 27 MB/sec. If you do the test on an old computer (slow HDs) you get lower figures.

 

Ah, I thought since this thread was on disk-imaging software, that your interest was centered on backup transfer-rates.

Yes, I can simply copy large files between the drives, comparing Firewire with USB-2, but the resulting rates will still be considerably less than what might be expected due to the read-write times of the drives.

If I don't have to help the kids with their homework after dinner, I'll try to get this done tonight.

 

it would be nice to see throughput differences comparing USB 2 with Firewire copying a file.
according to theory USB has a higher peak transfer approximately 25 %
But in case with Firewire,the peak transfer is equal to sustained rate transfer so its clear that Firewire is faster.
I have no FW connections so i can't proof if this is true.

 

Anyone know of a similar software to ATI that has got a startup recovery option?
Thanks

 

paragon does.

 

USB 2.0 vs. Firewire 400 Test

Ok, I got home early this evening so I was able to run this test before dinner. Per Brian's request I copied 3 large files (totalling 3686 MB) from my internal hard drive to my external hard drive.

Internal drive is a WD 74 GB Raptor, SATA1, 10K RPM, 16 MB buffer.

External drive is a WD 250 GB, USB 2.O/Firewire 400, 7200 RPM, 8 MB buffer.

First, I copied the files using the USB 2.0 connection (no other USB devices were connected). The copy process completed in 142 seconds, which calculates to a transfer rate* of 208 Mb/s, less than half the USB 2.0 spec (480 Mb/s).

Next, I copied the same files using the Firewire 400 connection (no other FW devices were connected). This copy completed in 79 seconds, which calculates to a transfer rate* of 373 Mb/s, very close to the Firewire 400 spec (400Mb/s).

* The resulting 'transfer rates' include the HDD read and write times. Therefore the actual 'data-transfer rates' are somewhat greater than indicated, but the read-write overhead is exactly the same in both the Firewire and USB tests.

Hth -- my kids are dragging me off to dinner now, so I bid you good night.

 

Appster,

I really appreciate your running that test and presenting the raw data. Converting to MB/sec; your USB 2 is 26, about the same as mine and Firewire is a clear winner at 47. A very convincing test.

That is how I use my external HDs. I image to an internal HD and later copy an occasional image to an external HD as a secondary backup. So the numbers are real world for me.

 

Thanks Appster,confirmed !! Sadly enough most hardware these days is USB 2 orientated,will look if can implement an extra firewire controller on the Mobo.

But then most of my externals for daily use are USB 2 only,and i have a lot of them,Hmmm..........