USB2 speeds when using the bootable CD.

I am giving TI a test run to see if it can replace my current product of choice, Norton Ghost 9.0.

In my testing of the bootable CD I have found that speeds on my USB2 hard drive are abysmal. It takes about 10 times as long to do an Integrity check of archives from my USB2 drive then from an IDE drive.

I also tried a test restore to another USB2 device and that also was about 10 times as slow.

In comparison, Norton Ghost 9.0 will do these same kinds of operations almost as fast as if I was doing them in Windows XP itself.

Why is USB2 support so bad when running off the CD? If there is no solution to this I am afraid I will be sticking with Ghost although I would like to get away from Symantec products.

Thanks.

 

Just some more info for you. Using V9 build 2289.

I ran some tests using my bootable CD and came up with these timings for you to see.

Integirty Check
---------------
Image on IDE drive took ~3 minutes.
Image on USB2 drive took ~1hr 39 minutes.

I started a restore test from an image on a USB2 device to another USB2 device and when I saw it would take something like 3 hours I canceled it.


As a contrast I did an integrity check under Windows XP. I used the same image on the same IDE and USB2 drive.

IDE = 3 minutes.
USB2 = 7 minutes.

By chance you aren't using USB1.1? This would probably explain why things are so slow. Ghost provides full USB2 support btw.

 

Re: USB2 speeds when using the bottable CD.

Hmmmm.... No Acronis Tech Support folks here? Don't need another new customer? Reminds me of Symantec Support :-(

 

Re: USB2 speeds when using the bottable CD.

Using TI v9.0 Build 2289 I backed up, verified and restored 8.2GB of used space from internal HD to external USB2 HD using "Normal compression" and "Normal priority" settings. All completion times provided are actual elapsed time rather than TI estimates.

From Windows

Create = 7.0 mins (6.2GB image)

Verify = 5.5 mins

From Boot Rescue CD

Create = 8.5 mins (6.2GB image)
(Task finished with the infamous "Backup archive creation has been completed with errors" message)

Verify = 6.5 mins
("Current Operation" progress bar only advanced approx 66% by the time the "Total Operation" bar had reached 100%)

Restore = 6.5 mins
(Started of with estimated time of 33 mins. By the time the task finished the "Current Operation" progress bar had reached 100%. However, the "Total Operation" bar still indicated 27 mins to go!!)

Given the above results, I conclude that the Linux based TI boot rescue CD does in fact contain USB2 HD drivers, albeit they are slightly less efficient than their Windows equivalent. It's clear to me that this oft reported speed problem is dependent on the user's specific hardware specification.

As an aside, Acronis need to fix the well documented erroneous boot rescue CD error message and tidy up the GUI progress bars.

Regards

 

Re: USB2 speeds when using the bottable CD.

Update:

My Maxtor USB2 external drive (40GB) is the drive that gives me the lousy speeds as I posted. Under Windows it runs fine.

I also have a Toshiba notebook IDE drive (80GB) that I use as a USB2 device via a USB2IDE adapter. This hard drive runs at USB2 speeds under the bootable CD albeit somewhat slower than it should.

As you correctly point out, some USB2 drives will run at USB2 speeds while others won't.

 

Re: USB2 speeds when using the bottable CD.

Just to complete the picture, it's often the hardware on the motherboard or USB 2.0 adapter that causes the problem rather than the hardware in the external USB 2.0 drive case.

The NEC chipset has proven to be the most compatible with the drivers available in Linux. This also is a more expensive chipset than the ALi and other chips which are often used.

I have found that motherboards, PCI and PC cards with the NEC chipset work at high speeds with every external hard drive I've tested. It may just be luck, but that suggests to me that the chipset on the motherboard, PCI or PC card is the most important factor.

All the Adaptec cards that I've seen use the NEC chipset, so that is a possible solution for you.

 

I plugged both my drives into the same USB port (one at a time, of course) to see if that made a difference. The Toshiba worked fine while my Maxtor did not.

I think I will try my Maxtor on my notebook to see if that works.

But IMO I should not have to do all this work to see if my drives are going to work or not.

btw... I tried the Acronis plugin with a BartPE CD and my Maxtor worked just fine. It is V8. It seems to work OK. Is there a V9 plugin?

 

Well.... tried my Maxtor on my notebook and got the same ridiculously slow speeds. The Toshiba worked fine using the same USB2 port.

So maybe the drive does matter.

 

It sure does in your case.

What Maxtor external drive model is this? One Touch, One Touch II or not the One Touch series of Maxtor external drives?

 

It's a NO Touch model. (Maxtor 2 F040L0) A few years old.

Hey... maybe this is a good excuse to pick up a bigger and better model.

 

Check the specs of any make/model you are thinking of buying to find out what USB chipset is fitted in the HD enclosure. As John said, NEC seems to cause the least problems. If possible, try before you buy .

Regards

 

Now that's the power of positive thinking!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, I've had no problems with the Western Digital USB 2.0 hard drives. I've also bought external drive enclosures from CompUSA and MadDog and had those work well.