TI 8.0 SLOW disk to disk

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by JohnSmith, Dec 29, 2004.

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

    JohnSmith Guest

    I just used Acronis True Image 8.0 Server for Windows on 2GB RAM - AMD DUAL CPU system to do a 40GB to 40GB IDE 7200RPM disk to disk clone.

    It took 18 hours!!!

    Doing it to an image took half an hour and then bring the image to the other drive took another half hour.

    So why did it take so long for disk to disk??
     
  2. A|ex

    A|ex Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Posts:
    82
    Its going to be your running software or hardware setup. Disk to Disk is done over the bus, and from you say they are IDE so i assume these are connected to the motherboard or controller card?

    If so if you have other hard drives or even a very powerful virus checker installed, its going to increase the time. If they are on the same IDE cable its going to take 3x longer to backup.

    Some disk utilities can slow down the disk backup so much its sometimes worth disabling them. I know that RAM utils, virus and in some cases firewalls(module/ systemfiles) can slow down transfer.

    Apart from that ive never had a problem and ive tried acronis on about 50 powerful servers (more powerful than yours) and aout 400 other and so far had 0 problems with regards to time.
     
  3. JohnSmith

    JohnSmith Guest

    It was from a boot cd, so no other running programs.

    And each HD was connected to a different IDE controller (there are 2 on the MB) so each was a master.

    It's got to be something that TI didn't like. It was a Tyan dual processor motherboard.
     
  4. A|ex

    A|ex Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Posts:
    82
    well for starters 40gb to 40gb on seperate ide channels should take 3 mins assuming u dont have a cd-rom or some other device connected. imaging them to another drive should take around 4 - 5 mins.

    you dont have a cd-rom or anything else connected right? and you do have the hard drive jumpers configured correct and settings in bios ?
     
  5. bobbyjak

    bobbyjak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Posts:
    35
    Sounds like your drives are set for PIO mode and not DMA..
     
  6. A|ex

    A|ex Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Posts:
    82
    bobby i was thinking the same thing along them lines too! if you do have it setup incorrectly i dread to think what the performance of the server is like
     
  7. jogibu

    jogibu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    1
    Same to me.
    It's a WIN2000 Server with windows-software-raid doubled 80GB IDE drives. The overall performance is 100% fine. I canceled TI image process after 13 hrs. and 47% achievement. Try again over the weekend. It's an image via GB lan to another server. o_O
     
  8. A|ex

    A|ex Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Posts:
    82
    where is the other server and is the 1GB card recognised as a 1GB card?
     
  9. miked

    miked Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Posts:
    8
    Several issues of concern here.

    First, Windows software raid is worthless. It can be slower than syrup in January. Use a hardware raid controller, i.e. Promise or Adaptec.

    Next, a GB connection requires GB NICs and a GB switch. Then, both machines involved need to be pretty quick. If the recieving machine has a slower processor and/or disk drive, then the GB connection just lost up to 50% of it's ability. Actually, it is a latency problem at the recieving machine.

    Next, if there is a flaw on the source drive, TI might be doing a sector by sector copy which is dead slow with anybodies software that can detect flaws.

    Because the bootable CD is booting Linux, I am not sure if the TI software is using both processors, but, I don't think it matters.

    I'm guessing it is one or a combination of the above issues that is causing the lengthy time.

    Mike
    http://www.savemybutt.com
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.