TeraByte Product Release Thread

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by TheKid7, Aug 19, 2011.

  1. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    That's right. That number is part of your name.
     
  2. TheBear

    TheBear Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Posts:
    174
    Works today. I am not sure what is different here. Perhaps the IFW license people needed to bless it.
     
  3. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    The blessing is on the way. You will recall how BIBM evolved.
     
  4. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    3,336
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I'm a little late to the party; I didn't even know IFW (I refused to accept the new name :) ) version 3.00 was released. I was just discharged from the hospital after five weeks, so i feel like I missed a lot. I've read the changelog, but there doesn't appear to be that much that has changed. Why should I upgrade to version 3 and stop using version 2? It looks less geeky (which isn't a pro for me), and phylock doesn't works anymore. Those are cons...what do you consider pros (reasons to upgrade)?

    n8
     
  5. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Hi n8

    I upgraded and dont see any immediate performance improvement, but am still glad I did. I trust IFW 2nd only to SP and Macrium. I wish to support their development, and have faith going forward it can only get better. So in my case I just want to support their on going efforts, and thus I am glad I upgraded.

    Pete
     
  6. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,945
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    N8, I got the same feeling. I think the following statement says it all...

    "Major Update - base for new features moving forward"

    There just aren't a lot of "new features" yet.
     
  7. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    3,336
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    The interesting thing is that I did see performance increases, and in fact they were quite impressive; my ssd drive that used to take 15 minutes to image now takes 6. The interesting thing is before I was using compression 2, now I'm using compression 12. Also phylock now works, all i needed to do was uninstall the drivers and reinstall them.

    However, I do wonder if version three is ready for primetime; meaning, is it as rock solid as version two was? I'd hate to trust it and then realize it's not as solid as its predecessor.
     
  8. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    n8,

    I've done over 100 restores on test systems, desktops, laptops and USB flash drives. V3 behaves just like V2 except the restores are a little faster. On my systems, IFL is the fastest restoring app of the three (IFL, IFW, IFD). But IFL was the fastest in V2 as well.

    n8, I've never tried compressions 2 and 12 with V3. I will today. 14 and 1 should be the fastest as they don't compress as much. 14 was the fastest for me with V2. 1 is the fastest for me with V3 but it depends on the amount of non compressible data in the partition being imaged.
     
  9. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    n8,

    Your choices were better than mine. I imaged my Win10 partition. SSD to HD.

    Compression level, Imaging time is seconds after PHYLock has got a lock, Image size in GB.

    1 113 15.1
    2 111 14.2
    12 109 14.1
    14 120 15.7

    Looks like 12 is the winner on speed and compression. In my computer at least.

    For those who want an explanation of these compression numbers, see page 155 of the IFW User Manual.

    Edit... Compressions 11 and 13 and None

    11 106 14.4
    13 196 14.0
    None 170 22.2
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2016
  10. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,926
    For my computer: Intel i7-2700K, 8GB DDR3 RAM, 120GB SSD as OS disk, Windows 10 v1607 x64. The OS takes up ~ 20GB of data on C: drive.

    The old IFL 2.99 takes about 8 minutes to create an image using enhanced size C; the new IFL v3.00b takes about 4 minutes using the same enhanced size C option. This is very impressive, considering now the file size of the image is slightly smaller than the Acronis TI disk image (with high compression option). Anyway, for my computer, the speed increased for ~50% when use relatively high compression options, while the disk image size is a lot smaller than before.
    BTW, if your CPU is lower end, or is the low-voltage models: i.e., xxxU, then you won't see much performance increase. Also when you use "increased speed" options, the performance gain is also not obvious.
    But for me, it looks like the new v3 does use multi-thread compression for disk image creation. This alone makes the upgrade to v3 totally worth it, since I always do high compression cold full image.
    IFL is now a serious competitor for Acronis, performance wise.
     
  11. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    oliverjia,

    I checked and V3 uses all 8 of my Logical Processors.
     
  12. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    5,703
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
  13. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Phew They are coming hot and heavy.
     
  14. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,926
    Thanks Brian for your confirmation. Yes, I guess that's how IFW/IFL improved its performance significantly. Before this, Acronis is the only disk imager that utilized multi-thread compression. Great move by Terabyte.
     
  15. TheKid7

    TheKid7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Posts:
    3,571
    Maybe I am Too conservative. Version 2.99 is working fine for me now. I will probably wait a month or two to buy and start using version 3.
     
  16. valnar

    valnar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Posts:
    137
    I'm doing the same, but I bought it now to get the discount. I just didn't install it. 'Might as well..
     
  17. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,945
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    If a new major version of an imaging application offers no significant new features (meaning features you don't really use or need) AND you're currently happy with its performance... is there really a reason to upgrade at that time, just for the sake of upgrading?
     
  18. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,926
    Using enhanced size B, IFL performs as fast as Acronis with high compression, and the file size is even smaller for IFL. That's significant performance boost.
     
  19. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    valnar,

    My suggestions...

    Copy imagew.exe, imagew64.exe, imagew.ini, imagew64.ini and IFW.INI to a folder in your Data partition.
    Uninstall all components of V2 IFW
    Install V3 IFW

    Now you can run V2 or V3 IFW depending on your testing requirements. V3 runs from the Start Menu. V2 runs from the folder you created.

    Edit... If you don't have imagew.ini and imagew64.ini create them by copying your rego information into a text file and rename the file extension from .txt to .ini

    Copy the rego information in this format (License and Key lines)...

    Code:
    
    [License]
    Key=Your Name XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  20. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    oliverjia,

    I know you prefer cold images but could you do a test for me? Use IFW and see how long it takes to create an enhanced size B image. In my computer V3 IFW is a "touch" (few %) faster than V3 IFL on all compression settings. My V2 IFL was about one third faster than V2 IFW.
     
  21. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,926
    Interesting results. I'll see if I can get a chance this weekend for a test.
     
  22. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    12,115
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    IFL is still faster than IFW for restoring. It will restore in 2/3 of the IFW time.
     
  23. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,338
    Location:
    Adelaide
    New release out now:

     
  24. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    3,336
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I'm not sure what to make of "Other potential changes, updates and enhancements." That has to be the most idiotic, purposefully ambiguous, nonsense I've ever seen in a changelog. That tells users nothing.
     
  25. TheRollbackFrog

    TheRollbackFrog Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Posts:
    4,945
    Location:
    The Pond - USA
    Well... if they can get the upgrade COST way before the "Other potential changes, updates and enhancements," sounds like a good deal for Terabyte Unlimited :rolleyes:

    I never knew where their income came from... v2's been out since the fall of Rome.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.