Very Slow Incremental Backups
Hi,
My incremental backups used to take just a few minutes.
I've recently noticed that they're taking about half an hour!
I don't recall after which update this started but I've noticed that that I now only have one backup file instead of a main and all the separate incremental files, so I presume it may have been after whatever introduced that.
It's a pretty appalling fall off in performance for incrementals though.
My full backup takes 50m so what's the point in doing incrementals any more if they are taking 30m?
Anybody know what's going on please or if there's a solution?
Mark
Hi Steve,
Yes I was running version 25700 (now on 38530).
I presume, from your response, that the only way to get fast, incremental backups is to revert back to the old format.
So the question still remains, what is the point of incremental backups in the new format if they now take half as long as a full one instead of a few minutes (generally).
Acronis seems to be hell bent on making things worse.
Regards Mark
Mark, are you still seeing slower performance since upgrading to the latest #38530 build for ATI 2020?
I was surprised that Acronis released a 4th update build just 2 days ago for a version that they stopped supporting back in last September, so do not know if it included any undocumented fixes for issues such as this?
Looks like mainly directed to security vulnerabilities. Release notes below:
Acronis True Image 2020 Update 4 for Windows
What's new
- Added support for the Windows 10 October 2020 Update.
- Bug fixes and other improvements.
Fixed issues
- SEC-2196 Local privilege escalation was possible due to insecure folder permissions. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-10140, CVSS score 8.7 (high). We want to thank HackerOne researchers @adr, @mmg, @vanitas for reporting this to us.
- SEC-2181 Local privilege escalation was possible due to a DLL injection vulnerability. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-10139, CVSS score 8.1 (high). We want to thank HackerOne researchers @adr, @mmg, @vanitas, @xnand for reporting this to us.
- SEC-2721 Local privilege escalation was possible due to DLL hijacking vulnerability in multiple components. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-35145, CVSS score 6.9 (medium severity). We would like to thank HackerOne researchers @vanitas, @z3ron3, @binary_01 for reporting this to us.
- SEC-1766 - Local privilege escalation was possible due to improper soft link handling. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-9451, CVSS score 5.9 (medium). We want to thank HackerOne researcher @mjoensen for reporting this to us.
- SEC-1768 Antiransomware microservice did not authenticate inter-service communication. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-9450, CVSS score 4.9 (medium severity). We would like to thank HackerOne researcher @mjoensen for reporting this to us.
- SEC-1767 - Possible denial of service due to insecure folder permissions. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-9452, CVSS score 4.2 (medium). We want to thank HackerOne researcher @mjoensen for reporting this to us.
Known issues and limitations of this version
- TI-169821 Backup conversion to VHD format is not present for the new backup format, *.tibx.
- TI-171553 Moving backups by using the Acronis True Image console is not available for the new backup format, *.tibx.
- TI-169548 Renaming local backups is not supported for the new backup format, *.tibx.
- TI-172340 The backup mounting option is not supported for the new backup format, *.tibx.
- TI-172086 After the second launch of a local disk backup with the "Version chain" scheme, Acronis True Image creates a differential backup instead of a full backup.
System requirements
Hardware requirements:
- Intel CORE 2 Duo (2 GHz) or equivalent processor that supports SSE instructions
Operating systems:
- Windows 10 (most editions, including October 2020 Update, except for Windows IoT editions)
- Windows 8.1 (except for Windows Embedded editions)
- Windows 8 (except for Windows Embedded editions)
- Windows 7 SP1 (all editions)
- Windows Home Server 2011
Beta builds are not supported.
Windows Embedded, IoT editions, Windows 10 LTSB, and Windows 10 LTSC are not supported.
It is possible for the software to work on other Windows operating systems, but it is not guaranteed.
File systems:
- NTFS
- Ext2/Ext3/Ext4
- ReiserFS(3)
- Linux SWAP
- HFS+**/HFSX
- FAT16/32/exFAT
If a file system is not supported or is corrupted, Acronis True Image can copy data by using a sector-by-sector approach.
Storage media:
- Hard disk drives (HDD)
- Solid-state drives (SSD)
- Networked storage devices
- FTP servers
- The FTP server must allow file transfers in the passive mode. Acronis True Image 2020 splits a backup into files with a size of 2 GB when backing up directly to an FTP server.
- CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R (including double-layer DVD+R), DVD+RW, DVD-RAM, BD-R, BD-RE
- USB 1.1 / 2.0 / 3.0, USB-C, eSATA, FireWire (IEEE-1394), SCSI, and PC card storage devices
Limitations on operations with dynamic disks:
- Creation of Acronis Secure Zone on dynamic disks is not supported.
- Recovery of a dynamic volume as a dynamic volume with manual resizing is not supported.
- Try&Decide® cannot be used for protecting dynamic disks.
- The "Clone disk" operation is not supported for dynamic disks.
Incremental backups still taking an absolute age to perform ... even though there's been no significant changes since my last weekly backup. It's just farcical.
Mark, have you double checked all your backup task settings to ensure that nothing has been changed without your knowledge. In particular changes made by the Acronis Managed Machine Mini Service / Acronis Dashboard servers which have triggered such unwanted changes previously late last year? I ask because there have been posts from other users suggesting that this has been happening again?
Hi Steve,
Sorry about delay in replying.
All my backup options are exactly the same as before.
My full backups take about 1h 10m, My Incrementals now always take around 30m
The full ones take about the same duration as they used to do, the incrementals used to be done anywhere between 3m and 7m depending on changes. So for the most part, they are 10x longer than they used to be.
Mark
Mark, sorry but not sure what more to say here regarding performance of backups.
Performance will always vary between different PC's and user scenarios along with the types of disk drives involved, source and destination, connection method etc.
Perhaps the pertinent question here is: why does the backup duration matter? Obviously, it will matter if it is excessively longer and interrupts normal use of the PC etc!!
My own backups are scheduled to take place when my PC is not in normal use, i.e. to wake up my laptop, run the backup, then allow it to return to sleep. This has worked very well for a very long time such that my only check is that the backup has completed successfully via email notifications that come to my inbox.
I am running ATI 2021 on this laptop, and daily incremental backups of my main OS and Data drives both typically take under 15 minutes from looking at the Activity panel for each task.
The laptop previously had ATI 2020 #25700 running essentially the same tasks.
Typically, my tasks are scheduled with 15 minute intervals when running multiple backups around the same time, with some backups running only once per week which will take a little longer due to more data changes during that period.
Hi
My PC is no different.
All my drives (including back-up drive) are SSD.
The only thing that appears to have changed is the backup file format.
According to the log, my full backup is around 340GB in size and was done in 1hr 7mins at 687Mbps
My last incremental backup was only 3.3GB in size yet it still took 34m to do this at only 13.2Mbps.
The whole point of incrementals is speed. That speed advantage appears to have gone.
Mark, although it is reasonable to expect that incremental backups will be much quicker than when making a full one, the backup process still has to read through all the source data and compare this to identify all changed data since the previous backup was created, so the only real time saving is in terms of the data to be written to disk.
The only other option would be to try an alternative backup application with the same source data and incremental backup scheme to see it that shows a marked improvement in performance or not?