Why such a speed difference Symantec System Recovery vs SB, TB, etc?

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by Petermgr, Nov 10, 2012.

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

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Hi all,

    I am testing various drive backup software packages. So far I've downloaded the trials for Terabyte IFW , StorageCraft SP, Drive Snapshot, and Symantec System Recovery 2011 (SSR).

    From reading many posts on this site, I see that Terabyte, StorageCraft and Drive SP, are amongst the favorites.

    However, I've noticed a huge speed difference when creating test backups.

    SSR took about 2.5 hours to create a backup of my 250gb drive that contains 122gb of data.

    Both Terabyte and StorageCraft take about 7 hours.

    Drive Snapshot took the most time, about 11 hours. However, I found that this software did not alter my computer performance while doing the backup. I like the simple approach of this software and the additional command lines I can enter to exclude specific folders or files. However, in a trial on another system, it would take 50 plus hours to do a backup. That other system is a 1 TB drive, but only contains 80 gig of data. I know if I split the partition and created a smaller C drive, the speed would increase.

    Question really is why is SSR so much faster? In my settings on all the programs tested I do my best to match settings so that I'm comparing apples to apples so to speak.

    I know that speed isn't everything since the final result needs to a reliable backup file.

    Thanks in advance for your input . . .

    Peter
     
  2. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    Those times seem awfully high to me; way too high.

    What kind of backup are you attempting- sector by sector ?
     
  3. MudCrab

    MudCrab Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,483
    Location:
    California
    What compression setting did you use for IFW? Speed A is generally the fastest, especially if the data being backed up doesn't compress well.

    What are the system specs? All the times seem long for that amount of data.
     
  4. The Shadow

    The Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    USA
    Hi Peter,

    While I would expect some timing differences between those disk-imaging apps (e.i., different algorithms and different compression ratios), your timings sure seem suspicious.

    Were each of those apps run from within Windows and were each of the backups of the used sectors only? Was image-file verification included (or not included) with each backup? Inclusion/exclusion of image verifiction would account for substantial differences! Comparing the size of resulting image-files may provide clues into what's going on.

    Finally, be sure to consider the ease and reliability of restoring your backup before deciding on any backup app!

    Hth,
    TS
     
  5. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Nope, not sector by sector. Basically all by default. With password encryption. All backups being sent via the network to a drive on the server.

    Thanks,

    Peter
     
  6. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    What size where the resulted images?

    Something in your test is flawed.
    Non of these programs is so slow; usually all of them can backup more than 70gb/hour (and this on a usb).

    Panagiotis
     
  7. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Yes, for IFW it was set for Speed A.

    Specs:Screenshot
    http://peterslens.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v56/p1257966740-3.jpg

    Thanks!

    Peter
     
  8. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Yes, all the apps were running from Windows. And yes, used sectors only. I set them to exclusion of verification. And then tried some settings with verification and those would take longer as expected.

    Size of the final backup files: Terabyte 73g, Snapshot 72.4g, and SSR at 81.5g. I am currently running a second tray with ShadowProtect, but my previous attempt was close to the size of Terabyte.

    Thanks,

    Peter
     
  9. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    For Image for windows read the pdf manual and search for the settings:
    IOBS=
    and
    PerfOP=

    On some network setups those can greatly improve your timings.
    Especially try using IOBS=1 in the ifw.ini

    Panagiotis
     
  10. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Re: Hold the phone . . .

    I am going to test directly to a usb drive rather than to the drive on the server . . .

    Will advise . . .

    Thanks for all the quick responses everyone!

    Peter
     
  11. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Thanks for this pandlouk . . . right now I am testing IFW directly to a USB drive. After that I will test to the network drive using your tip on the IOBS and PerfOP settings . . .

    Will let you know what I find.

    Peter
     
  12. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    You are welcome.

    By the way, as and advice do not test with such large drive. Better to use a partition with around 10-20gb with various type of files and test/compare them with that.

    If not it will take you days to find the ideal settings for your setup for each program...

    Panagiotis
     
  13. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Update:

    Tested on direct usb ~ 45 minutes with IFW. Need to look at the Network connection to the drive on the server. And possibly what activity is taking place to that drive.

    Still testing with IFW to the Network Drive. Initial tests of 10 minutes running showed no real difference in setting IOBS=1 in the ifw.ini. When I look at the command line in Image for Windows, the IOBS=1 does not display where as the compression option is.

    Peter
     
  14. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    When you insert such values in the ini, they are considered global parameters (aways active) and do not appear in the command line.
    For testing in command line you should add it as /iobs:1
    You can try with IOBS=A (IFW will try automatically to detect the best setting 1,2 or 3 to use). Or you can test it manually with IOBS=2 and IOBS=3.

    Another thing to check for both IFW and DS is to use VSS instead of PHylock and DS driver.

    It could be that their drivers interfere with the input/output of you network card and using VSS should solve this.

    By the way I hope that you do not have all of them installed together on the system. If yes, it can be that SSR driver (a licensed driver of SP) conflicts with the other 3 and you get such slow results.
    http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=352

    Panagiotis

    edit:
    One last thing to check is how do you save the backup? 1 large file? If yes, try to split it in smaller pieces (eg. 10-20gb). Some network destinations perform poorly with very large files.
    http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH171456
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
  15. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Hi pandlouk,

    Really appreciate all this information! Helps me to better understand my options and what to consider when doing backups. Spent the night trying various backups. However, after more testing, learning more about the various programs and what they have to offer for final backups, I am likely going for the Symantec program.

    In answer to your question, "By the way I hope that you do not have all of them installed together on the system"; yes I do. Of course, after I settle on the final product I will delete the others. I wouldn't have thought that having them installed on the same system, but only having one program running, would still create the possibility of a problem.

    Thanks again!

    Peter
     
  16. claykin

    claykin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Posts:
    132
  17. Petermgr

    Petermgr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    15
    Thanks claykin,

    I'm pretty close to making a final decision. Comparing SSR to IFW. Want to make sure that what I pick has the ability to restore to new hardware without problems.

    Appreciate the link!

    Peter
     
  18. pandlouk

    pandlouk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Both of them have no problem restoring to dissimilar hardware.

    If you need incrementals go with symantec.
    If not and especially if its for home use go with IFW since the license allows you to install it to 3 machines.

    Panagiotis
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.