I am trying to restore an image 

1-Using the restore rescue facility/ window pe
2-Choose the incremental image with the latest date (maybe I should have use the full image)
3-The target an source drives are both Segate drives with 7500rpm,   Source is 4tb, target is 1tb

The restore has been running for 2 days and is only 40% complete.    Its running on pretty robust robust hardware.   The image itself took less than an hour to create.  Is there anything I can do to speed it up?   Should I have chosen the full image and then restored the incremental to that?      

I love the product but if it takes several days to do a restore,  I may have to start looking at other options.

Any suggestions?

BY

It's not the total capacity of either drive that matters, but the total amount of data to be transferred from the backup image to the destination drive.  In any case, two whole days for 40% completion is ridiculous.  It's not really possible to offer a single specific suggestion based on the information available, but that kind of I/O performance result is almost always related to the hardware itself or to its connections or configuration.  This KB article lists some of the more likely culprits.

What PE base version was used for your rescue media build, and does it include any non-generic hardware driver support?  What kind of results do you get for a straight copy of a large file using the PE Explorer?

Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

Its a Lenovo W520 top of the line.   6.9 Windows performance index.    I made the rescue disk from the free version of Reflect before I upgraded to the premium version.   The image I'm restoring was incremental and made with the premium version.   Going on 3 days of restore now.   Don't want to stop it at this point,  but this is really, really annoying.   I'd be willing to start again if someone had a good theory as to why this is happening.  

Anyone?

No one is suggesting that your Lenovo W520 isn't a "top of the line" machine.  However, the recovery process under way is essentially a straightforward I/O operation and, unless I've misread the W520 specs, at least one of the drives involved is external.  Was that drive and its external connection included in those wonderful performance results you mention and under what Windows version were they obtained?  What type of connection to what type of drive enclosure and what driver support is provided for it (if any) in your rescue media build based on what PE base version?

I understand that you are looking for a theory, but proper theories must be based on carefully observed and reported facts, not just any old wild speculation.  Unless you are prepared to consider and respond to factors such as those listed in the relevant KB article, it's going to be very difficult to help you to pin down the cause and resolve the problem.  I can assure you of one thing.  The results that you are seeing aren't just unusual and unacceptable but spectacularly so, and I can think of nothing attributable to the Reflect software alone that could possibly account for it.  Nevertheless, if you believe that the problem is due to Reflect itself, you can prove or disprove the point quite simply by trying to copy a large file directly using the PE Explorer as suggested.  If you get similar painfully slow results doing that, then the problem is not being caused by Reflect.  It's either hardware-related or due to some supporting deficiency in the rescue media build.

You should at least try rebuilding your rescue media with the current Reflect version and with that external drive attached during the build process.  And try using PE10 as the base if you used some earlier PE version previously as PE10 will support more and newer hardware natively.

Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")