Clone taking a very long time.


Author
Message
Arno
Arno
New Member
New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2, Visits: 7
10 hours to clone a 1TB drive.
Any ideas?
TIA





jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K, Visits: 14K
What are the source and destination drives (2.5” HDD, 3.5” HDD, SSD?) and how are they connected to the system? How much of that 1TB drive is filled? Any third-party anti-virus running?

If you’re not running third-party anti-virus that’s sometimes known to interfere with Reflect or using something slow like USB 2.0 (where that transfer rate would be just right if you were transferring 1TB of actual data), other possible culprits include a bad cable and an unhealthy source and/or destination disk that’s having to try multiple times to read/write data in certain locations on the disk. It’s not uncommon for imaging/cloning applications to be the first applications to surface this behavior since most people’s everyday usage of their PCs doesn’t have them reading/writing every sector on the disk that contains data, whereas image and clone operations do.

The good news is that subsequent clones will be much faster anyway thanks to Rapid Delta Clone, which means only the changes will be replicated from this point on. But it would still be good to determine the underlying issue if there is one.
Edited 22 September 2017 12:11 AM by jphughan
Arno
Arno
New Member
New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)New Member (3 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2, Visits: 7
The SOURCE is a brand new 1 TB Seagate 3.5 HDD as is the DESTINATION. This is a system that was recently rebuilt after a lightning strike on the home it was in took out the original C drive (but, surprisingly, not the computer box, power supply or motherboard). The cables are USB 3 and new. The port on both the box and the external enclosure are both USB 3. Presently the C drive holds only Win7 Home Premium, MS Office (Word and Excel ONLY), a few small apps like 'Snag It', Firefox and Thunderbird (which is not yet in use). So . . maybe 10% of the drive is occupied with programs and data if that.

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.








Froggie
Froggie
Guru
Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 750, Visits: 6.1K
Arno, 10% of a 1tB drive is a lot of storage... 100gB. We also don't know the architecture (hardware) of that Win7 box.  It's important, as that USB3 connection you refer to may only be running at USB2 speeds.  Win7 has no indigenous USB3 support, it requires outside (3rd party) drivers to support the USB3 speeds.  If the mainboard is Intel-based, it will require a separate Intel driver to run those ports properly, and I have found that some Win7 Systems won't even run USB3 properly with the latest release from Intel itself... many require a previous release to run the faster USB3 speeds.

To get a handle on this, I would download the FREE ATTO disk benchmark... it doesn't require installation.  Set it to test your USB3 connected drive and allow it to run to completion.  If during the test, the READ speeds of that device never go much above 35mB/sec, that external port is only running at USB2 speeds regardless of the hardware involved, which means you'll need to find a (correct one... mentioned above if intel) supported driver that will run your USB3 subsystem at their rated speeds.  If that turns out to be the case, a fully supported USB3 connection will definitely make a major difference in your current experience.
Edited 22 September 2017 9:54 PM by Froggie
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K, Visits: 14K
^ Interesting, I’ve found that if USB 3.0 drivers aren’t installed, then USB 3.0 ports don’t work at all rather than working at reduced speed — and on some newer motherboards, even the 2.0 ports (if any) don’t work either because they’re wired to the same USB 3.0 controller that requires drivers to function. But I suppose some boards may have a 2.0 controller wired to 3.0 ports for easier backward compatibility before “proper” drivers are installed.

Arno, you said “both cables are” (plural) USB 3.0 but then mentioned you’re cloning your C drive, which suggests an internal drive — so are you cloning from an internal drive to USB 3.0 or from one USB 3.0 drive to another? It probably won’t matter since USB 3.0 is full duplex (unlike 2.0, which is half duplex), which means there wouldn’t be a speed penalty for cloning from one 3.0 device to another the way there would be for 2.0, but clarity is always useful. Smile

The lightning strike comment makes me wonder if some of the connectors on the motherboard that control the SATA and/or USB 3.0 pins might not be in the best shape....

In addition to Froggie’s suggestion above, just to isolate variables here and assuming you’re trying to clone an internal C drive to an external USB 3.0 drive, do you happen to have either another USB 3.0 drive you can test cloning your C drive onto and/or another PC whose internal C drive you can try clonning to the USB 3.0 drive you’re currently using? That would help identify where the bottleneck is and focus further troubleshooting, and this testing can be done with the Free version of Reflect. In the latter case, please note how much data the source drive has on it for transfer rate calculation purposes. That’s recorded in the Reflect log, or you can right-click the source drive in Windows Explorer and select Properties to see how much space is used. In fact, can you do that even for your current drive just to make sure your 10% estimate is in the ballpark? 100GB definitely shouldn’t take 10 hours to clone, in fact even 1TB shouldn’t, but once again it’s always good to have exact figures when troubleshooting.
Edited 22 September 2017 10:16 PM by jphughan
Froggie
Froggie
Guru
Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)Guru (1.4K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 750, Visits: 6.1K
Personally, I've never run into a USB3 sub-system that refused to run USB2 speeds if the driver wasn't installed... but I'm sure lots of hardware implementations are different.

JP's comment on time to clone is correct.  When I quickly tested your 1tB Seagate (I have a 1 & a 3 in the same modern drive series) tied to a "real" USB3 port running at its proper speed, the expected ATTO top speed should run around 175mB/sec... much faster than the 30-35mB/sec usually experienced across a USB2 connection.

Please let us know what you find out...


Edited 22 September 2017 10:16 PM by Froggie
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K, Visits: 14K
Froggie - 22 September 2017 10:14 PM
Personally, I've never run into a USB3 sub-system that refused to run USB2 speeds if the driver wasn't installed... but I'm sure lots of hardware implementations are different.JP's comment on time to clone is correct.  When I quickly tested your 1tB Seagate (I have a 1 & a 3 in the same modern drive series) tied to a "real" USB3 port running at its proper speed, the expected ATTO top speed should run around 175mB/sec... much faster than the 30-35mB/sec usually experienced across a USB2 connection.Please let us know what you find out...

(Off-topic) There have been a few threads on here with people asking why their keyboard and mouse didn’t work in Rescue, and the reason turned out to be they had WinPE 3.1-based Rescue Media (Win7 kernel) and their systems only had USB 3.0 ports. Building with PE 5.0 or later fixed it. PE 4.0 annoyingly didn’t include native 3.0 support even though it’s based on the Win8 kernel that did. I’ve actually ended up injecting the popular USB 3.0 drivers into my Win7 ISO’s boot.wim and install.wim images for convenience, as well as the hotfixes to enable NVMe support. Haven’t had to use that ISO yet, but it did work and it’s handy to have available.

(Back on-topic) Arno, Froggie’s numbers are in line with my own when using 3-4TB 2.5” USB 3.0 drives. The typical sustained transfer rate range I see is around 80-110 MB/s when copying large files or doing block transfers, as clones operations use. When copying a lot of tiny files, transfer rates plunge because of all the extra file system update work that the extra files entail.
claykin
claykin
New Member
New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)New Member (17 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12, Visits: 174
Arno - 21 September 2017 11:17 PM
10 hours to clone a 1TB drive.
Any ideas?
TIA




I had an experience that might help.
Was cloning a 5400rpm rotational disk to SSD.  Clone speed was about 25MB/s through a USB3 to SATA adapter.  After a few changes I was able to achieve 125MB/s.

Stop Malwarebytes service (or uninstall it).  Also stop services or realtime protection for any AV.
Disconnect Ethernet cable or disable network adapter​

​for both your source and destination disks make the following changes in Windows Device Manager​​​​​​​
Disk Drives > source disk
Set Better Performance and Enable Write caching.  You may optionally turn off write cache buffer flushing.
(Make sure your PC is connected to a UPS backup battery so you don't corrupt data if power is lost)​

Do same for destination disk.​​​​

Remember to revert settings after complete if your PC is not connected to a battery source.

Edited 6 November 2017 11:14 PM by claykin
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (3.1K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K, Visits: 14K
Disabling write cache buffer flushing is a dangerous thing to do even if you ARE connected to a UPS. It doesn’t rule out someone accidentally knocking the power cord out, power supply failure, or a lightning strike that a UPS is not going to withstand. A laptop with a built-in battery is another story, but even there, while some people find it improves performance on NVMe SSDs and decide to take the risk, many have decided to opt for a bit more data safety, and I doubt you’d see much if any performance improvement on a spinning disk.
Edited 6 November 2017 11:25 PM by jphughan
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Similar Topics

Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search