Cold-Imaging Competition

I haven´t restored the images referred to in the previous post, so I can´t post results. But my experience has been that restore times are similar or less than create times.

These are previous results:

SATA to USB 2.0, Paragon HDM 2011 Suite, 9.2 GB image. Time to create: 7:10 min. Time to restore: 5:40 min.

SATA to USB 2.0, SP, 8.4 GB image. Time to create: 6.27 min. Time to restore: 4.29 min.

 

Agreed. Restore times for me - across most products - is usually less than or equal to the imaging time.

 

I restored the SP image to the same partition it was imaged from, and it took just 13:38 - faster than the backup process.

I'm presently setting up a spare drive as a test unit for Paragon, Clonezilla and maybe IFD (although I've been disappointed with this software) test restores, because I don't want to continually bombard my production SSD h/drive with restores.

 

In my experience too SP has always been faster when restoring, I'd like to add that there are noticeable differences in times using different USB harddrives: my WD 1TB is slightly slower than smaller portable HDDs. I don't know whether it is normal, but with the WD the restoration process 'pauses' for approximately for 1 minute (no blinking light) before resuming its operation.

 

Testing repeated - restore times included this test - with test platform same as my initial tests in post #120, with only the source partition being on a different internal drive - a WD Caviar Black, but the partition is also 94.54GB with the exact same Win7x64 installation. Image for DOS included this time as well.

Recovery Disk Products Tested

1. ShadowProtect v4.1.0 - Paid

2. Paragon 2011 B&R Advanced (free) v10.0.15.12802 - Free

3. Clonezilla v1.2.8.46, amdx64 - Free

4. Image for DOS v2.65 - Paid

==========================================================

ShadowProtect

Backup time: 16:03

Image size: 35.2GB

Restore time: 12:32

Paragon B&R

Backup time: 42:39

Image size: 38.1GB

Restore time: 33:54

Clonezilla

Backup time: 32:24

Image size: 31.9GB

Restore time: 17:35

Image for DOS 2.65

Backup time: 36:45

Image size: 34.38GB

Restore time: 21:31

EDIT 08172011, added Image for Linux

IFL 2.64

Backup time: 34:36

Image size: 34.37GB

Restore time: 12:22

EDIT 08212011, added TB WinPE IFL v2.65a

TB WinPE 2.65a

Backup time: 22:50

Image size: 37.7GB

Restore time: 18:35

=========================================================

SP clearly, at least on my hardware, kicks the stuffing out of the other ones in terms of backup & restore times, at, of course, no expense to reliability.

Clonezilla produces the smallest image and second fastest restore and backup times.

Paragon B&R is slowest in both backup and restore times and produces the largest image.

EDIT IFL restore time is on par with SP, but the backup time is not much better than IFD.

EDIT #2 WinPE IFW combined backup/restore times are second fastest to SP's.

 

Thanks for all these numbers. Funny...a lot of it depends on your system...the Terabyte Unlimited tools have always been fastest for me hands down, SP being second. However, it's been more or less universal that Paragon is the slowest in all aspects, although it's always been solid.

 

You're welcome, and I agree the hardware likely plays a significant part in speed differences. I'v been most disappointed with IFD, a product that I do know gets lots of praise in these forums, but for me it's been terrible in many regards:

1. Very slow over USB 2.0 to external drives.

2. Routine mouse and full interface freeze-ups.

3. Images that verify good when done from the IFW Windows program - only to fail verification when trying to restore from IFD disk.

4. Less than impressive speeds (as shown in my results) when backing up/restoring from internal drive-to-internail drive.

I can only assume it hates my hardware, although odd because other products work rather flawlessly and mostly as expected for me.

 

I've had issues with IFD and USB as well (it's documented and there are some ways around it). Have you tried IFL? It's what I use as it was faster than IFD and avoids all the USB issues (also has networking, and the tools built in). I'd recommend it to test.

 

Yes, I've used IFL but only for Linux backups/restores, and with good success, too. Does it really work for ntfs as well? I didn't know that if it does.

 

Sure does...works fine - and was built to support - NTFS. It's my primary imager and have done many restores with it fine. From the TB website:

"As its name implies, Image for Linux runs under a Linux environment, but it can backup or restore any partition, including those of DOS or Windows. Image for Linux can also image to or restore from mount points and includes USB3 support. The program can also directly access FAT, FAT32, EXT 2/3/4, and NTFS partitions, as well as most writable CD/DVD/BD drives. By default, backups made to CD/DVD/BD are bootable, which provides you with a convenient recovery CD/DVD/B"

 

Okay, thanks for that info, napoleon! I'll try it out on the test drive and report the results

 

IFD is a matter of last resort. I wouldn't use it regularly and IFL is much better in every way. I'd say the only reason to use IFD is for its floppy capability on old PC's that don't have the memory to handle IFL.

 

I have a WD 1TB "green" AFD disk installed in a USB 3.0 Vantec enclosure. I haven´t noticed any delay when backing up or restoring images. The disk is very quiet.

 

Yeah, until now I had thought IFD was the obvious companion boot disk to IFW, but it seeems IFL may be the better choice. Time will for me, probably tonight I'll try it out.

 

First off, I should say the first imaging app I bought and used was IFD. I used it for several years and it was rock solid. All images I ever made were good ones and they all restored 100%. I thought I'd never change... But I did!

My criticism of IFW/IFD/IFL has become the cryptic, ever changing nature of IFD/IFL (for cold images/restorations.) As the developer added options (which he felt he needed to do (and he probably did!)), it became less and less user friendly at a higher and higher rate. Eventually to the point I had to read the user instructions over and over to try to gain a clue at what it all meant. And I am not a newbie to this stuff at all.

I finally reached a breaking point and dumped it. I just don't think a user should need to spend much time running their imaging program. The focus should be to do it and move on.

If this sounds like it's against IFD/IFL, it is not. But users should be aware that it takes time to learn to use it well. Something I finally ran out of...

 

Some time back the Developers of IFW/IFD/IFL added an Automatic Restore option which simplifies things a lot for me. I only Image my Windows System partition.

Now when I do an Image Restore, I select the Automatic Restore option. It is my understanding that the Automatic Restore option restores the partition "exactly" as it was Imaged (MBR, Partition size, partition position on the hard drive, drive letter, etc.).

 

IFL/IFW is not user friendly, true. But it is powerful. That comes at a price.

My biggest criticism is the menu layout and manual which lists all the options. They should only list the main options most people would want and put the esoteric options under a submenu with detailed explanations (either in the application or the documentation) that describes WHY you would need that particular option. Yah, they sort of do that already in the manual, but you still need to know what it means from a technical background. Samples and examples would go a long way.

Like the Linux world, this is a prime example of a programmer creating the software for techies instead of appealing to the masses with a nicely laid out GUI. Function over form.

 

Added test results for IFL 2.64 in post #130. Backup time is only marginally faster than IFD, but the restore time is excellent

 

Now can you please do the same with IFW?

Many thanks in advance!

Best regards,

KOR!

 

IFW isn't cold imaging, but i suppose i could test it anyway. It should be fairly quick, as I remember it being when I used it a few times to backup.

 

Why it isn't cold imaging?

I do cold imaging with IFW. You are paid customer, and you can download TBWinPE and build WinPE for cold imaging. Even the free customers can do this too!

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Ohh, sorry, I see what you're saying. I thought you meant from the Windows program. I didn't build the WinPE disk, nor have I really read up on that aspect of IFW, but I could probably do so this weekend

 

Here is the link for TBWinPE:

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/tbwinpe_tutorial.htm

You will also need Microsoft WAIK. With Microsoft WIAK you can also build Macrium Reflect v5 WinPE, EaseUdS Backup v3.0 WinPE and so forth.

If you don't want to burn CDs/DVDs and/or use USB, then download EasyBCD and use them as boot menu on Windows boot. See Raza's thread on this.

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Here is Raza's thread on: Toutorial - Booting into a WinPE recovery environment without using a bootable media like CDs/DVDs and/or USB:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=303906

Best regards,

KOR!

 

Alrighty, thanlks for the info!