paragon 10 big image size

Discussion in 'Paragon Drive Backup Product Line' started by demoneye, Jan 15, 2010.

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

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    hi

    i just made a full backup using paragon 10 backup for testing.
    my conclusion about it not so good
    i compare same backup method to shadow protect 3.5 latest version and drive snapshot 1.39.

    1)paragon is the slowest of them all (very slow)
    2) paragon make its backup about 500- 800 mega MORE than the others

    i used default values , change nothing :)

    anyone from paragon can explain the above facts?

    cheers
     
  2. Paragon_Tommy

    Paragon_Tommy Paragon Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Posts:
    918
    Can you provide more information on your system, method and stats?

    1. Amount of data backed up.
    2. Destination of Backup.
    3. Level of compression.
    4. Sizes of other backups and approximate time.

    You can change your compression to be better than "best" by opening layout.ini found in the paragon root folder, change best compression value to 9.
     
  3. SIW2

    SIW2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Hi Demoneye,

    In addition to Tommy's post- the default setting for Paragon is very little compression ( not sure why that is the default, but there you go).

    If you tick the advanced box - you can change that to "normal" which gives better compression without affecting the speed much.

    I am not sure why you found it particularly slow.

    On my system it images at 1.1 - 1.2 gb per minute. Not especially quick - but faster than windows 7 system image for example.

    Other software may be a bit quicker - but if you look in Task manager you can see Paragon is very low on resource usage ( average 9% cpu usage on my system ).

    I tested another well known imaging app. That was 30% quicker than Paragon - but cpu usage averaged 25% - nearly 3 times what Paragon uses.

    The idea is you don't want to sit and watch images - you can work more easily over the top while using Paragon.
     
  4. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell

    test your method agians drive snap shot 1.39 or shadow protect (both default setting) , and report back the results :)
     
  5. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    1) about 10 giga c:\
    2) my d:\ drive (internal)
    3) normal
    4) about 500-800 mega , time i cant remember :\
     
  6. brocks

    brocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Posts:
    39

    That's very strange, because I was testing Shadow to clone my system drive, and its speed and compression were very comparable to Paragon -- both were very fast (a bit over two minutes to restore about 8GB of data onto a 100GB+ partition. However, Paragon allowed me to copy to a partition smaller than the source partition, and Shadow did not, which IMO is a huge point in Paragon's favor.
    Are you sure that:

    a) you were copying comparable data? Documents compress much more than jpg's or mp3's.

    b) the state of fragmentation and free space on the source and target were the same?

    b) you were copying only the used space, and not doing a sector copy of the whole partition?
     
  7. SIW2

    SIW2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Posts:
    1,572
    Good point brocks,

    I often find point B is very relevant.

    People sometimes make several images to the same drive - one after the other. Unless they delete the image they just made, before trying the next app. and ensure the space and fragmentation is the same each time - it will not be representative.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.