Skip to main content

Cloning process stops when clone bar starts

Thread needs solution

Attempting to replace 250GB HD (contents about 170GB) with 240GB SSD (Crucial BX200).  After restart, bar appears stating preparing to clone. Then changes to clone.  After about 4 minutes screen goes blank and windows restarts and program stops.  The HD has a recovery partition (D drive) of about 15GB.  Have tried with skipping the D drive w/o success. SSD is recognized by computer and Acronis.  SSD does not show up as a drive on "Computer" window but shows up in Device list along with the HD drive. Any suggestions.

0 Users found this helpful

Chuck, how are you connecting the new 240GB SSD drive to your computer when performing the clone?

The recommendation here is that you replace your 250GB HD with the 240GB SSD drive, i.e. have it in exactly the same position, connected to the same cable as the current working drive.  Then you connect the original 250GB HD drive on either a spare connector, if available, else using an external USB connection (cable or caddy).

When cloning, you should be creating a duplicate of the entire source 250GB HD without omitting any partitions - Acronis will resize as needed if you select the Automatic method.

It is also recommended that you perform this activity using the bootable Rescue media on either CD/DVD or USB memory stick, and ensure that both the old and new drives are visible and accessible with that boot media.

Please see KB document https://kb.acronis.com/content/56634 for more information and a video showing the cloning process, and for reference, see KB document https://kb.acronis.com/content/45831 which explains some reasons why a system may become unbootable after cloning.

There are a lot of posts with people using the new Crucials and finding them to be faulty - no just here, but on the web. If you're able to return and get a Samsung Evo or something else, I'd try swapping out the drive while you still can.  The BX series is their "Low-end" product and they may have cut some corners or have a faulty batch that made it to market.  I'd avoid Kingston as well if you can - lot's of bait and switch (used good parts for the original models, then used inferior parts that have nowhewre the same performance, but still sell them as being the same thing).   

http://forum.acronis.com/forum/116266#comment-347504

 

This may explain the poor performance on the BX series... not good for large file writes due to using a seperate storage partition for cache which is undersized - kind of like a hybrid drive except it's all non-mechanical, but still suffers from hybrid limitations with large file transfers because of the low available cache:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3000913/storage/crucial-bx200-ssd-review…

Though it's extremely affordable, the BX200 suffers the worst sustained write performance of any SSD we've ever tested. 

The BX200’s sustained write performance is even worse than that of the OCZ Trion andToshiba's Q300, two drives I’ve already warned users about.​

A little cache 
The BX200 is actually two drives in one: a very small and fast one that uses DRAM and SLC (single-level cell) memory, and another much larger and slower drive using TLC. In the BX200’s case, that TLC can only write data to its cells at about 80MBps. No, that’s not a typo. But because of that small cache drive, the BX200 acts just like a high-end SSD most of the time.

Thanks for the replies. I am using a 2.5 inch SATA to USB connector. I tend to agree that the problem may be the Crucial SSD.  After your coments I will probably return it and opt for another brand.

Thanks!