ntfs slower than fat32

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by dorin, Dec 14, 2006.

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

    dorin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Posts:
    9
    hi there,

    i noticed that when the target partition where backup to be saved its ntfs (in external usb hdd cases) than the process is waaaaay muuuuuch sloooower.

    in my case, for a 7gb system to backup/recover on/from ntfs it required ~1h20min while with fat32 partition only 9 min....

    is there a bug fix? i;m speaking of booting from acronis startup manager.

    thanks,

    dorin
     
  2. Xpilot

    Xpilot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Posts:
    2,318
    I saw this reported by another user some while ago so I did a trial to see if the result was repeatable.
    It was not, the times were almost identical if a particular USB enclosure was formatted in FAT 32 or NTFS.

    Have you used the same enclosure/chipset combination for your timings or are you comparing two different external enclosures ?

    Xpilot
     
  3. dorin

    dorin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Posts:
    9
    same ext hdd. its a trekstor 320gb
    first time when i made the recovery was fat32 then i converted it to ntfs about a month ago and yesterday i was astonished when it showed 1hr22min, i mean from 9 min.....

    same partition, same hdd, when it it ntfs takes up to 10 time longer
    i.m using TI Home 10 (4,871)

    thanks for any ideas, sugestions

    dorin
     
  4. Xpilot

    Xpilot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Posts:
    2,318
    If you have some partition management software you could convert back to FAT 32 without losing your backup . Using Windows to convert is not an option presumably as it would erase the backups.

    My way of backing up and restoring does not use the optional verification process at any stage though I doubt that this would account for any difference in times apart from them both being longer.

    As I said I have not experienced this difference in speeds myself on three different USB drives so cannot be of any further help. I would be interested if someone can nail it down for you.
     
  5. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

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

    It's possible that you may have developed some bad sectors, either on the source drive or the destination drive. Recommend that you drop into the Command Prompt and run chkdsk X: /r (substitute X with the drive letter being tested) on your internal HD and the external USB HD in turn. This is a pain in the butt as it will take a long time but needs to be done as part of your diagnostic process.

    Regards
     
  6. dorin

    dorin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Posts:
    9
    i did a surface scan few days ago. as soon as i converted the partition to fat32 everything went smoothly.

    then i let the other partition ntf, and copied the same backup archive, same result! from ntfs 1h22m from the fat32 9 min, same hdd.

    so is no way to be any bad clusters the pb!
     
  7. Xpilot

    Xpilot Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Posts:
    2,318
    If precautions are not taken it is possible that the NTFS conversion may have resulted in 512 Byte sized clusters.

    I have never suffered in the cluster dept [​IMG] so I do not know if this could be part of the problem.

    Xpilot
     
  8. Diavonex

    Diavonex Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    I wonder whether the version used have a part to play with the timing.

    When I use Acronis 7.0 it took 1hr. 20mins to do a Recovery.

    When I use Acronis 10.0 it took only 12 minutes.

    I'm using NTFS.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.