Full Image Backup


Author
Message
phred
phred
Junior Member
Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38, Visits: 111
New user here with a few new user questions I'll post each in its own topic.

I'm doing a full image backup of my Win10 PC. It has one SSD (boot and system drive) and three 1tb hard drives. The first two hard drives are partitioned into five partions and four partitions, while the third HD is all one partition.

All drives and partitions are included in the image backup. When the b/u starts, it moves along quite speedily (either side of 1gb/s. But when it hits the last HD, it slows down to less than 125mb/s. Progress on this drive is currently 16% complete and the time remaining shows at 11 hours. When this drive started, it showed as 16 hours remaining.

Second issue, which may or may not be related to the above: I'm coming from a number of years using True Image Home, and have opened a support ticket because the first Reflect b/u I did with this scheme clocked in at 711gb. While the same drives/partitions on True Image took up 253gb.

Does anyone have a clue or suggestion as to what's going on with either of these issues?

Thanks.

jphughan
jphughan
Macrium Evangelist
Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K, Visits: 54K
The only times I've seen dramatic drops in read performance during an image operation have been on drives that were near failing.  As for the size difference, are you sure you didn't accidentally select to perform a forensic image rather than using the default "intelligent sector copy"?  Otherwise, are any of your partitions using a file system that Reflect might not support capturing intelligently?  If you're using encryption, did you perhaps capture the Reflect image while the partition was locked (which would force Reflect to use a sector by sector copy) while Acronis might have had access to the partition while unlocked and therefore would be able to see its contents?  Other than that, are you sure you didn't accidentally include some other source disk/partition in your Reflect backup?  Sorry if that sounds trite, but that has turned out to be the correct answer when others here have asked why their backup is so unexpectedly large.  If you select that backup in the Restore tab, you can see the partition map of all disks/partitions included in the image at the top of the interface (you'll need to scroll for a multi-disk image).

Out of curiosity, what is the total amount of source data being backed up across all disks and partitions you mean to include in these backups?

Edited 15 September 2020 8:53 PM by jphughan
phred
phred
Junior Member
Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38, Visits: 111
jphughan - 15 September 2020 8:52 PM
The only times I've seen dramatic drops in read performance during an image operation have been on drives that were near failing.  As for the size difference, are you sure you didn't accidentally select to perform a forensic image rather than using the default "intelligent sector copy"?  Otherwise, are any of your partitions using a file system that Reflect might not support capturing intelligently?  If you're using encryption, did you perhaps capture the Reflect image while the partition was locked (which would force Reflect to use a sector by sector copy) while Acronis might have had access to the partition while unlocked and therefore would be able to see its contents?  Other than that, are you sure you didn't accidentally include some other source disk/partition in your Reflect backup?  Sorry if that sounds trite, but that has turned out to be the correct answer when others here have asked why their backup is so unexpectedly large.  If you select that backup in the Restore tab, you can see the partition map of all disks/partitions included in the image at the top of the interface (you'll need to scroll for a multi-disk image).

Out of curiosity, what is the total amount of source data being backed up across all disks and partitions you mean to include in these backups?
Thanks for the reply. I do understand that most new users need the most support. And that need for support drops off after a while.

Since the backup in question is still running (and it says it will be running for another ten hours) I will only be able to answer a few questions now. I know for a fact that I'm using the default intelligent sector copy as I had to look them to find out the difference. And I usually go with defaults until I get a good feel for any software package. The source drive that seems to cause the slow down uses NTFS. And there is no encrption being used. All drives/partitions on this PC are included in the b/u (the same as with True Image.) The destination drive is a 2gb Passport USB drive (and was with True Image also.)

I'll get you the total amount of source data once this b/u completes. I will also double-check the partition map in the restore tab.

Just thinking out loud --- I may have t break this into two jobs with the "slow" drive as it's own job, and the rest of drives as another. I will also look into the possibility of a failing disc. But why would it work ok with True Image and not Reflect?

Thanks.

jphughan
jphughan
Macrium Evangelist
Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K, Visits: 54K
You don't necessarily have to wait until the backup finishes.  The "Operation" headings at the top of the activity window show statistics about all partitions included in the backup, including how much storage is Used on each.

I'm assuming your destination is 2TB, not 2GB. Smile

If Acronis images that one drive quickly even now, then I'm not sure how to account for that.  The only other cause of poor performance I've seen within Reflect has been interference from third-party anti-virus.  That admittedly could account for a difference between Reflect and Acronis if the AV is only identifying one as a potential threat, but even in that case I would expect the impact to affect Reflect's imaging of all disks/partitions, not just one in particular.  Now you've got me curious though.  I'll post again if I think of anything else, otherwise please do report back if you find the answer elsewhere!

Edited 15 September 2020 9:41 PM by jphughan
phred
phred
Junior Member
Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38, Visits: 111
jphughan - 15 September 2020 9:41 PM
You don't necessarily have to wait until the backup finishes.  The "Operation" headings at the top of the activity window show statistics about all partitions included in the backup, including how much storage is Used on each.

I'm assuming your destination is 2TB, not 2GB. Smile

If Acronis images that one drive quickly even now, then I'm not sure how to account for that.  The only other cause of poor performance I've seen within Reflect has been interference from third-party anti-virus.  That admittedly could account for a difference between Reflect and Acronis if the AV is only identifying one as a potential threat, but even in that case I would expect the impact to affect Reflect's imaging of all disks/partitions, not just one in particular.  Now you've got me curious though.  I'll post again if I think of anything else, otherwise please do report back if you find the answer elsewhere

Yes - most definitely 2tb and not 2gb. If that were the case the b/u wouldn't even complete. :-)

As for the total size of the selected drives, it is 1.09tb.

I agree that it would unlikely for my security software to be the cause of the slowdown on only one drive. I will look into that as well.

Again - thanks.
phred
phred
Junior Member
Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38, Visits: 111
I have reconfigured the way this full backup runs due to the extreme amount of time it takes once Reflect starts imaging the third HD (M:\). I have split this into two backup jobs. One that images the SSD and two of the three HDs. And the other only does the third HD. The three HDs are all 1tb and the first two are broken into four and five partitions. The third is one 1tb partition. Here are my observations after running both.

The FULL backup (image) of the SSD and two HDs has 338gb selected and created a backup file of 251gb in 1 hour 34 minutes. The read/write speed was 2.2gbs and 849.8mbs.

The M: only backup (image) had 466gb selected and created a backup file of 459gb in 3 hours 27 minutes. The read/write speed was 2.4gbs and 607gbs.

For the curious, and in case it helps, the M: drive contains backups (formerly created by True Image and now by Reflect) of various files and folders from my NAS. It also is the location of the pagefile.

As @jphughan said early on, perhaps the drive is failing. Among the things I don't quite understand is why the compression of the b/u file of this this drive is so poor. Both jobs are set for medium compression and to use intelligent sector. Perhaps a defrag on the drive will help that.

jphughan
jphughan
Macrium Evangelist
Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)Macrium Evangelist (11K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K, Visits: 54K
Low compression ratio can occur when the source data is in a format that's already rather compressed.  For example, JPEG, MP3, MP4, AAC, ZIP, and image backup files that were compressed upon creation all have compression native to their file type, in which case there is little to nothing more to be gained by passing them through another compression algorithm.  Making a Reflect image of a drive that contains Reflect image files is conceptually similar to putting one ZIP file into another ZIP file.  The "outer" ZIP file is not going to be meaningfully smaller than the "inner" ZIP file.

Edited 16 September 2020 2:14 PM by jphughan
phred
phred
Junior Member
Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)Junior Member (60 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 38, Visits: 111
jphughan - 16 September 2020 2:13 PM
Low compression ratio can occur when the source data is in a format that's already rather compressed.  For example, JPEG, MP3, MP4, AAC, ZIP, and image backup files that were compressed upon creation all have compression native to their file type, in which case there is little to nothing more to be gained by passing them through another compression algorithm.  Making a Reflect image of a drive that contains Reflect image files is conceptually similar to putting one ZIP file into another ZIP file.  The "outer" ZIP file is not going to be meaningfully smaller than the "inner" ZIP file.

Yes, course. I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't consider that even though I knew it.
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search