Can full and differential/incremental have different target folders?


Author
Message
AHansen
AHansen
New Member
New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 45
Hello –

System: Win7 Pro SP1/Reflect 6.3, Bld# 1852
   Internals:
      1 Crucial 500 gig SSD: OS/Boot/apps
      2 WD 1TB HDDs: 1 for data/games and 1 for “hot” backup
   Externals:
       1 4TB WD easystore USB 3.0 split into 2 equal partitions

I have been using Reflect for “one off” BUs for about 2yrs (great product which enabled me to recover from a motherboard bios problem which prevented the machine from even posting – “idiot operator” error).

Successfully ran C, D & E full image backups last nite (unattended) and 1 differential/1 incremental for each drive during working hours this morning testing the scheduling capability with the “GFS” template as a basis. Resulting images (at high compression) used up approx. 50% of the 1TB hot backup drive.

Since:
[1] SATA 6 Gb/s – SATA 6 Gb/s is substantially faster than a SATA-USB
[2] slower performance speeds for the lights-out Full backups are not an issue
[3] there is 4 times the available space on the external USB drive
I would like to do my full backups to the external drive and “during working hours” differential and incremental backups using the much faster SATA-SATA connection. Is this possible (I understand that both target drives would need to be accessible to perform a recovery operation.)?

Thanx in advance for your time and expertise …


jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K, Visits: 24K
Reflect will only "append" to existing backups by writing the new backup file to the same folder, so no you can't do what you're asking. In certain setups using Incremental backups, you can later archive earlier backups and leave only the most recent Incremental in the set at the destination, and Reflect will still be able to generate new backups with just that file, but you can't say "Look at this Full in Location A and create a Diff from it in Location B."  However, SATA 6 Gbps is not substantially faster than SATA to USB unless something in your chain is causing your system to fall back to USB 2.0 speeds.  USB 3.0 is either 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps depending on the generation, and either way at that point the bottleneck becomes the write performance of the spinning disk itself, not SATA or USB buses.  Even if you were writing to an SSD in a USB enclosure, the difference would not be major, especially if you had a system and enclosure that supported UASP.  If you don't have USB 3.0 and this happens to be a desktop system, you can add USB 3.0 with an expansion card for about $25.  If you have USB 3.0 ports, make sure you're using a USB 3.0 cable as well, and also make sure your USB 3.0 drivers are current since you're on Windows 7.  When I install a SATA spinning drive into a USB 3.0 enclosure, I get a pretty consistent 80-120 MB/s write speed depending on the specific drive, and those figures match the performance I see when I have that same drive installed internally.  How fast do regular Windows file copies to your external drive run?  If they're down in the 30 MB/s range, you may be able to obviate your need for this request and get better performance to that drive across the board by figuring out whatever is preventing it from running at proper USB 3.0 speeds.

Edited 2 July 2018 1:31 PM by jphughan
AHansen
AHansen
New Member
New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 45
jphughan - 2 July 2018 1:22 PM
Reflect will only "append" to existing backups by writing the new backup file to the same folder, so no you can't do what you're asking. In certain setups using Incremental backups, you can later archive earlier backups and leave only the most recent Incremental in the set at the destination, and Reflect will still be able to generate new backups with just that file, but you can't say "Look at this Full in Location A and create a Diff from it in Location B."  However, SATA 6 Gbps is not substantially faster than SATA to USB unless something in your chain is causing your system to fall back to USB 2.0 speeds.  USB 3.0 is either 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps depending on the generation, and either way at that point the bottleneck becomes the write performance of the spinning disk itself, not SATA or USB buses.  Even if you were writing to an SSD in a USB enclosure, the difference would not be major, especially if you had a system and enclosure that supported UASP.  If you don't have USB 3.0 and this happens to be a desktop system, you can add USB 3.0 with an expansion card for about $25.  If you have USB 3.0 ports, make sure you're using a USB 3.0 cable as well, and also make sure your USB 3.0 drivers are current since you're on Windows 7.  When I install a SATA spinning drive into a USB 3.0 enclosure, I get a pretty consistent 80-120 MB/s write speed depending on the specific drive, and those figures match the performance I see when I have that same drive installed internally.  How fast do regular Windows file copies to your external drive run?  If they're down in the 30 MB/s range, you may be able to obviate your need for this request and get better performance to that drive across the board by figuring out whatever is preventing it from running at proper USB 3.0 speeds.

Hi - just a quick response to say "thanks" for the prompt and valuable response. I will need to do bit of more research based on your comment that I should be experiencing relatively equivalent performance from the SATA 6 gbs to SATA 6 gbs connection and the SATA to USB 3.0 connection. The USB 3.0 port used by the external HDD has been “confirmed” to be functioning at 3.0 speeds using the benchmarking software downloaded from userbenchmark.com and the only cable used is that provided by WD with the purchase of the external drive. Both of the internal HDDs are rated at 7200 and confirmed “functioning to spec” using the Seagate toolset.
Additional system info (purchased June 2011):
CPU---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor Name:         Intel Core i5-2400
Motherboard ---------------------------------------------------------------
Model:        PEGATRON CORPORATION 2AB5
Chipset:       Intel H67 (Cougar Point) [B3]
I’m currently preparing for (buying components stage) an upgrade to a Intel Z270 based motherboard/i7-6700 CPU but I was not anticipating backup speeds to be noticeably improved by the upgrade.
I will do quick “compare” …


jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.7K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.3K, Visits: 24K
Good luck with the investigation and new system build. As a quick aside though, if you’re planning around a 6th gen Core CPU in order to stick with Windows 7, keep in mind that Microsoft will stop providing updates for it in less than 18 months (January 2020) regardless of CPU, and if Windows XP is any indication, it won’t be long after that until browsers stop receiving updates on Windows 7, which will create functional and security concerns of their own.

Back to Reflect, if your external drive performs normally elsewhere, I’ve seen cases of third-party anti-virus slowing down Reflect, but it would admittedly be odd if that only occurred for jobs being sent to an external drive. If you haven’t already, try running a real-world test of copying a single multi-GB file from your C drive to the USB 3 drive and then run the same test from your C drive to your other internal drive. Those test results should be roughly identical. Then run the same Reflect Full backup job to each.
AHansen
AHansen
New Member
New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 45
AHansen - 3 July 2018 8:39 AM
jphughan - 2 July 2018 1:22 PM
Reflect will only "append" to existing backups by writing the new backup file to the same folder, so no you can't do what you're asking. In certain setups using Incremental backups, you can later archive earlier backups and leave only the most recent Incremental in the set at the destination, and Reflect will still be able to generate new backups with just that file, but you can't say "Look at this Full in Location A and create a Diff from it in Location B."  However, SATA 6 Gbps is not substantially faster than SATA to USB unless something in your chain is causing your system to fall back to USB 2.0 speeds.  USB 3.0 is either 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps depending on the generation, and either way at that point the bottleneck becomes the write performance of the spinning disk itself, not SATA or USB buses.  Even if you were writing to an SSD in a USB enclosure, the difference would not be major, especially if you had a system and enclosure that supported UASP.  If you don't have USB 3.0 and this happens to be a desktop system, you can add USB 3.0 with an expansion card for about $25.  If you have USB 3.0 ports, make sure you're using a USB 3.0 cable as well, and also make sure your USB 3.0 drivers are current since you're on Windows 7.  When I install a SATA spinning drive into a USB 3.0 enclosure, I get a pretty consistent 80-120 MB/s write speed depending on the specific drive, and those figures match the performance I see when I have that same drive installed internally.  How fast do regular Windows file copies to your external drive run?  If they're down in the 30 MB/s range, you may be able to obviate your need for this request and get better performance to that drive across the board by figuring out whatever is preventing it from running at proper USB 3.0 speeds.

Hi - just a quick response to say "thanks" for the prompt and valuable response. I will need to do bit of more research based on your comment that I should be experiencing relatively equivalent performance from the SATA 6 gbs to SATA 6 gbs connection and the SATA to USB 3.0 connection. The USB 3.0 port used by the external HDD has been “confirmed” to be functioning at 3.0 speeds using the benchmarking software downloaded from userbenchmark.com and the only cable used is that provided by WD with the purchase of the external drive. Both of the internal HDDs are rated at 7200 and confirmed “functioning to spec” using the Seagate toolset.
Additional system info (purchased June 2011):
CPU---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor Name:         Intel Core i5-2400
Motherboard ---------------------------------------------------------------
Model:        PEGATRON CORPORATION 2AB5
Chipset:       Intel H67 (Cougar Point) [B3]
I’m currently preparing for (buying components stage) an upgrade to a Intel Z270 based motherboard/i7-6700 CPU but I was not anticipating backup speeds to be noticeably improved by the upgrade.
I will do quick “compare” …


[*[Apologies for not editing/updating previous post; not sure how]*]

JPH - per your suggestion I ran a comparison test (using the folder backup; since I/O is the focus "what" should be irrelevant) of about a gig.  You were correct: I/O Performance: SATA-SATA Write 796.8 Mb/s  SATA-USB 3.0 Write 786.5 Mb/s  ( Read (of course) identical at 8.8 Gb/s).  Prior to the SSD intall I did two "one-off"  backups of the System/OS combo, one to an internal and one to and external 3.0; the internal took about an hour and the external about 3hrs.  Now I'm really curious .... I'll try more testing before posting.

[*[following provided in case someone else might find it useful]*]
CONTINUATION: - in the middle of further testing the OS stopped recognizing the external HDDs. After attempted  reboot computer hung on the POST screen.  Used the reset function to power down then disconnected the 3.0 USB devices and turned the machine back on and it booted clean and quick. Reconnecting the external HDDs to the 3.0 ports resulted in "no joy". but connecting via a 2.0 port initially resulted in the Windows msg "your generic USB device is disconected" which could mean a number of things including the wire connected to the 3.0 header on the motherboard was knocked loose during the SSD install BUT given my experience prior to SSD install I more inclined to suspect the header itself has finally died after a long decline.  Will update when root cause has been determined.

AHansen
AHansen
New Member
New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)New Member (5 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4, Visits: 45
AHansen - 3 July 2018 5:00 PM
AHansen - 3 July 2018 8:39 AM
jphughan - 2 July 2018 1:22 PM
Reflect will only "append" to existing backups by writing the new backup file to the same folder, so no you can't do what you're asking. In certain setups using Incremental backups, you can later archive earlier backups and leave only the most recent Incremental in the set at the destination, and Reflect will still be able to generate new backups with just that file, but you can't say "Look at this Full in Location A and create a Diff from it in Location B."  However, SATA 6 Gbps is not substantially faster than SATA to USB unless something in your chain is causing your system to fall back to USB 2.0 speeds.  USB 3.0 is either 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps depending on the generation, and either way at that point the bottleneck becomes the write performance of the spinning disk itself, not SATA or USB buses.  Even if you were writing to an SSD in a USB enclosure, the difference would not be major, especially if you had a system and enclosure that supported UASP.  If you don't have USB 3.0 and this happens to be a desktop system, you can add USB 3.0 with an expansion card for about $25.  If you have USB 3.0 ports, make sure you're using a USB 3.0 cable as well, and also make sure your USB 3.0 drivers are current since you're on Windows 7.  When I install a SATA spinning drive into a USB 3.0 enclosure, I get a pretty consistent 80-120 MB/s write speed depending on the specific drive, and those figures match the performance I see when I have that same drive installed internally.  How fast do regular Windows file copies to your external drive run?  If they're down in the 30 MB/s range, you may be able to obviate your need for this request and get better performance to that drive across the board by figuring out whatever is preventing it from running at proper USB 3.0 speeds.

Hi - just a quick response to say "thanks" for the prompt and valuable response. I will need to do bit of more research based on your comment that I should be experiencing relatively equivalent performance from the SATA 6 gbs to SATA 6 gbs connection and the SATA to USB 3.0 connection. The USB 3.0 port used by the external HDD has been “confirmed” to be functioning at 3.0 speeds using the benchmarking software downloaded from userbenchmark.com and the only cable used is that provided by WD with the purchase of the external drive. Both of the internal HDDs are rated at 7200 and confirmed “functioning to spec” using the Seagate toolset.
Additional system info (purchased June 2011):
CPU---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor Name:         Intel Core i5-2400
Motherboard ---------------------------------------------------------------
Model:        PEGATRON CORPORATION 2AB5
Chipset:       Intel H67 (Cougar Point) [B3]
I’m currently preparing for (buying components stage) an upgrade to a Intel Z270 based motherboard/i7-6700 CPU but I was not anticipating backup speeds to be noticeably improved by the upgrade.
I will do quick “compare” …


[*[Apologies for not editing/updating previous post; not sure how]*]

JPH - per your suggestion I ran a comparison test (using the folder backup; since I/O is the focus "what" should be irrelevant) of about a gig.  You were correct: I/O Performance: SATA-SATA Write 796.8 Mb/s  SATA-USB 3.0 Write 786.5 Mb/s  ( Read (of course) identical at 8.8 Gb/s).  Prior to the SSD intall I did two "one-off"  backups of the System/OS combo, one to an internal and one to and external 3.0; the internal took about an hour and the external about 3hrs.  Now I'm really curious .... I'll try more testing before posting.

[*[following provided in case someone else might find it useful]*]
CONTINUATION: - in the middle of further testing the OS stopped recognizing the external HDDs. After attempted  reboot computer hung on the POST screen.  Used the reset function to power down then disconnected the 3.0 USB devices and turned the machine back on and it booted clean and quick. Reconnecting the external HDDs to the 3.0 ports resulted in "no joy". but connecting via a 2.0 port initially resulted in the Windows msg "your generic USB device is disconected" which could mean a number of things including the wire connected to the 3.0 header on the motherboard was knocked loose during the SSD install BUT given my experience prior to SSD install I more inclined to suspect the header itself has finally died after a long decline.  Will update when root cause has been determined.

UPDATE & CLOSURE
[[Quick housekeeping for jphughan: Yes, the reason for only upgrading to 6th gen Intel CPU is to keep using Win7 and also yes, I’m painfully aware that in 18-24 months I’ll probably (like 95% probability) need to upgrade to Win10 (or whatever the then current version is). I upgraded to 10 about a year ago and after a week loaded my pre—backup image of 7 onto my system/OS/apps drive. My primary reason (yes, it is a silly one) is that I hate the look of the 10 GUI; I thought/think it is a serious step backward in terms of visual sophistication. But I have nearly reconciled myself to the eventual loss the Aero look.]]

On to the reason for this post …
Elaboration on salient build characteristics:
ATX mid-tower case w/i5-2400 CPU on a Pegatron 2AB5 board; BIOS AMI 7.05
Win7 Pro SP1 and Reflect 6.3
3 internal drives
  1 x Crucial 500MX 500GB SSD
  2 x 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX HDDDs @ 7200 on SATA3 6b/s
  No ODD
8 external devices
  1 x 500GB HP Pocket Drive USB 2.0
  1 x 2TB WD My Passport USB 3.0
  1 x 4TB WD Easystore USB 3.1
  1 x ODD USB 3.0 (not connected for testing)
  3 x flash/stick/thumb drives (1 connected for testing)
8 x USB 2.0 ports (4 front/4 rear)
2 x USB 3.0 ports, both front

Partial Cause/Fix of “disappearing external HDDs” on USB 3 ports
Cause: Sequence of events (spanning approx. 18 months)
  1. Purchased/started using a DC powered external USB 3.0, 7 port hub
  2. Moved residence (dismantle PC, box/ship, set-up PC)
  3. External USB 3.0 hub stopped recognizing external HDDs
  4. Purchased/started using a bus powered external USB 3.0, 4 port hub - 1 flash drive and both USB 3.0 HDDs connected; everything working at 3.0 speeds
  5. Added 1.5m USB 3.0 extension cable; everything working at 3.0 speeds
  6. Used this set-up for approx. a week, but noticed POST taking increasingly longer to complete prior to OS boot with each successive restart or cold boot
  7. POST hangs and won’t progress to OS boot; reset using power button w/no success, retry a few times w/no success
  8. Disconnect all USB devices except keyboard & mouse
  9. Post & boot quick & clean
  10. Reconnect hub to 3.0 port, nothing recognized
  11. Remove extension cable, retry, no success
  12. Remove hub and connect 3.0 drives directly into 3.0 port using only drive manufacturer supplied cable, no success
  13. Connect devices into 2.0 port, all devices recognized
[You can skip the next paragraph if you’re uninterested in “techy stuff”]
At this juncture I figured (a) a wire had been knocked loose inside the case or (B) the USB 3 ports or motherboard headers were malfunctioning on my older machine. A short chat with my technical consultant (very knowledgeable brother-in-law, but doesn’t “technical consultant” sound more impressive?) encouraged further research which eventually led to reviewing individual internal USB hub power available/requested info using Device Manager. Each self-powered hub can only provide 500 aMs (aM = milliampere, a unit of [measurement of] electric current; source Wikipedia). Each external HDD draws the 500 mA max and the flash drive draws 300 mA (for comparison, a standard USB 104 key QWERTY keyboard and 3-button mouse draw 100 mA each, according to Device Manager). Using the bus-powered external hub with 1 flash drive and both USB 3.0 HDDs connected I was asking the 500 mA rated port to provide 1,300 mA.

Based on the power demand to which the port was subjected using the bus-powered hub in this manner had (a) triggered a safety switch, (b) partially fried the hub/header electronics, (c) totally fried the hub/header electronics or (d) a combination of a & b. Since Device Manager found all the hubs that should be there (thank you HWinfo reports) it seemed logical that it was not (c) above and an attempt to reset any safety switches should be made.

Fix: Administrator “privileges” required
Click on Start -> Control Panel -> Trouble Shooting -> Hardware and Sound
Select Hardware and Devices


When the troubleshooting screen appears check the “Apply repairs automatically” box then click Next



When Windows finishes scanning for issues you should get the following screen with the wonderfully enlightening message that “some” changes were made to the system. Although a bit light on explanation, this is potentially good news.



Although Windows doesn’t explicitly recommend a restart at this juncture, it can’t hurt and it most likely help.

After reboot, either open Windows Explorer with Computer selected or click the Start -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Disk Management sequence. Either provides a way to (almost) immediately determine if this Fix worked in your situation.

Now try reconnecting your external HDD to the USB port. It will take a few “Microsoft Seconds” for Windows to do its thing and add the drives to the display. If reconnecting multiple drives, wait until each has completed its recognition/display cycle + a five count before adding another drive.

If this fix did not work for you, perhaps this (not a hot)  link https://support.hp.com/th-en/document/c01893385 will help. You may get a bunch of HP gobbledy-gook about signing in/registering; sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. If you do, scroll down a few screens … the info is on the linked page.

At the outset I called this a partial cause/fix. Why partial? If I leave the external drives connected during restart/reboot, there continues to be a degradation in POST times, so I may have damaged something permanently on the header to port chain and no software oriented fix will rectify that. For the time being I disconnect the drives after shut down, only reconnecting them after boot is complete and they seem to be functioning “to spec” (see Speed Test below). Fortunately this build is very near EOL.

Hope this helps & good luck.
=======================================
Reflect will only "append" to existing backups by writing the new backup file to the same folder, so no you can't do what you're asking  ... you can't say "Look at this Full in Location A and create a Diff from it in Location B." However, SATA 6 Gbps is not substantially faster than SATA to USB unless something in your chain is causing your system to fall back to USB 2.0 speeds. USB 3.0 is either 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps depending on the generation, and either way at that point the bottleneck becomes the write performance of the spinning disk itself, not SATA or USB buses. .... How fast do regular Windows file copies to your external drive run? If they're down in the 30 MB/s range, you may be able to obviate your need for this request and get better performance to that drive across the board by figuring out whatever is preventing it from running at proper USB 3.0 speeds.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/O Relative Speed Test: Copy using Robocopy GUI to effect copy and capture stats; no multi-threading
Sample characteristics
Dirs: ______143
Files: _____1632
Bytes: ____9.257GB including one 4.7GB iso image

HDD Details – Internal
D: P1 of 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX @ 7200 on SATA3 6b/s (439.45 GB/56% free)
E: P2 of 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX @ 7200 on SATA3 6b/s (489.13 GB/53% free)
F: 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX @ 7200 on SATA3 6b/s (931.51 GB/41% free)
HDD Details – External
G: 4TB WD Easystore USB 3.1 (3725.86 GB/82% free)
I: P1 of 2TB WD My Passport USB 3.0 (931.60 GB/99% free)
J: P2 of 2TB WD My Passport USB 3.0 (931.38 GB/60% free)
K: 500g HP Pocket Drive USB 2.0 (478.62 GB/64% free)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folder to Folder: Source: D: || Destination: D:
Elapsed Time: 0:02:49 |||| Speed: 59083927 Bytes/sec. || 3380.809 MegaBytes/min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partition to Partition: Source: D: || Destination: E:
Elapsed Time: 0:04:10 |||| Speed: 40257315 Bytes/sec. || 2303.542 MegaBytes/min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal to Internal: Source: D: || Destination: F:
Elapsed Time: 0:01:26 |||| Speed: 117280459 Bytes/sec. || 6710.841 MegaBytes/min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal to External: Source: D: || Destination: G:
Elapsed Time: 0:02:07 |||| Speed: 78552124 Bytes/sec. || 4494.788 MegaBytes/min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal to External: Source: D: || Destination: J:
Elapsed Time: 0:02:54 |||| Speed: 57214886 Bytes/sec. || 3273.862 MegaBytes/min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal to External: Source: D: || Destination: K: (USB 2 sanity check)
Elapsed Time: 0:06:39 |||| Speed: 24936925 Bytes/sec. || 1426.902 MegaBytes/min.

I/O Relative Speed Test/Backup Image creation using Reflect 6.2
Imaging Summary (settings identical for both backups)
Auto Verify: N
Maximum File Size: Automatic
Compression: None
Intelligent Copy: Y
Power Saving: N
Total Selected: 202.84 GB
New File: 190 GB
Backup Type: Full
Image Completed Successfully in 00:30:27 [[SATA 3 to SATA 3]]
      I/O Performance: Read 2.4 Gb/s - Write 889.9 Mb/s
Image Completed Successfully in 00:32:50 [[SATA 3 to USB 3.1]]
      I/O Performance: Read 2.4 Gb/s - Write 823.7 Mb/s
Whilst relative image creation performance for the two connection types is close enough to call them roughly equivalent (at least for a standard desktop/laptop backup), the relative copy performance difference between the two connection types (86 sec. vs 127 secs. or 32%) is significant enough to question the “single data point” comparison. Ten successive copies of the same sample data using Robocopy were made for both connection types. The results are provided in the following table; MB/min (one of the Robocopy logged performance measures) were converted to Mb/s using (value/60) x 8.


The averaged relative copy performance difference between the two connection types is 31%, validating the “single data point” comparison. Reflect’s performance vis-à-vis Robocopy – which was originally developed by Microsoft for internal use, theoretically circumventing whatever Windows does in the background for a standard “copy & paste” – is remarkable. (Apologies for the tangent, and no, I do not work for Macrium.)

CONCLUSION: The very slow backup speeds to external USB 3.1 HDDs when compared to backing-up to an internal SATA 3 HDD (about 3 times a long) – which drove my original query – were indicative of a deeper problem. In my case use of the bus-powered external USB 3.0 hub for connecting external HDDs degraded performance until the OS could no longer recognize the drives. Thanx to jphughan’s advice (coupled with the Mystery of the Disappearing Drives) further research led to identification of root cause and solution. The copy/image creation test results provided above – taken in aggregate – prove this approach to fixing the “lost USB drives” problem worked (at least partially) for me; hopefully it will also work for you.


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