TI 2021 performance vs TI 2018
After several frustrating days, this is a request for assistance or clarity re why 2018 outperforms 2021 in an environment that meets the specified minimum system requirements of both versions.
The machine - is a Toshiba C665 laptop. It has a 500gb HDD and another 500gb as an external usb HDD. It was running win 7 32bit until an irrecoverable software error crashed the system completely. I tried a bootable recovery from a backup, which succeeded, but the boot failed because of a signature error reported in winboot.exe. A PC tech tested the internal HHD as good and recovered the OS with a win7 x64 version - the hardware actually supported that, and I have no idea why the original fit was 32bit. After the machine was recovered with a clean install of win7 x64, enter the backup and recovery issues.
Generally, a backup of the C drive yielded a backup file of about 40Gb. I was using TI 2018, which got wiped during the recovery. I recently purchased a special deal of TI 2021, and installed that, to obtain a backup file of the new system drive. It installed, activated, opened OK, and after configuring the backup, proceeded to create the backup: and stalled at the preparing data phase for more than 10 minutes . . Eventually, I cancelled the backup, uninstalled then re-installed 2021, and repeated . . same result. v frustrating. The same 2021 package on another win7 x64 laptop albeit with 8gb RAM worked fine.
After a 2nd failure with 2021, I re-installed TI2018. When creating the backup, it flew thru the preparing data phase and went straight to backing up files . . . backup successful
The C665 has 6gb RAM installed, which far exceeds the 2gb minimum specified.
So, is there any history or reason why 2021 would get jammed up like this, when 2018 does not? I did note that the size of the installation executable for 2018 was 560K, and for 2021, 803K - about 40% larger.
Hi Steve,
The C665 has 6gb of RAM so I don't think it's an issue - did say that. Otherwise, the x64 OS runs sweetly on the platform.
As to the changes in file type -tibx vs tib - I already knew that because I ran 2020 on a desktop. On observation, it runs quite a bit faster generating a tibx file compared to generating a tib file for the same drive. As part of the 2021 activity, I updated the desktop and another win7 x64 laptop to 2021 as well and ran backups with no issues.
Nevertheless, the reality is that on this c665 platform that is identical in every respect - I spent a lot of time trying to find something that wasn't - to a backup of a C drive with 2021 vs a backup of the same C drive using 2018, and all I can say is that 2021 was just stalled on the data prep phase for more than 10 minutes, apparently doing nothing, whereas 2018 spent maybe a few seconds on that before going on to the backing up part. The only different between the 2 cases was the software version; even the backup configuration was the same. And the only obvious difference between the affected laptop and the other one is the amount of RAM available (6gb, machine jammed vs 8gb machine works), but nevertheless that 6gb is far more than the 2021 minimum system specs require.
So, while I can accept that a later version has differences, they should not interfere with the basics which a backup of a system drive to a local destination surely is. The time 2021 spent on prep is way beyond any reasonable expectation, I kept trying to wait it out but nothing changed on 2 attempts, and the difference between available RAM (6gb vs 8gb) might be why 2021 did what it did.
When uninstalling 2021, the acronis survey asked why, and and a superior performance by a prior version was an explicitly stated option: so I chose that. The existence of that option choice clearly suggests there may be history of such available, and I thought I should ask in the only place I have access to. If you have a private line to the devs, maybe you could get a better answer.
David, the MVP's are just experienced users with no private access to Acronis developers and often kept in the dark about their intentions / changes etc!
David, the difference between 6GB and 8GB of RAM can be very significant. Most recommendations for Windows 10 that I've seen reflect 8GB minimum. Why Acronis says 2GB minimum for the app may only be a minimum to run and say nothing about performance. Once you hit the physical limit of memory, then performance goes down very fast because of the necessary pagiing.
I suggest opening up Task Manager and selecting the Performance tab and monitoring memory.
Hi Bruno,
Re the OS - it's win7, not win 10. But I specifically checked the user guide for minimum system specs even before installing 2021, win 7 all versions were supported and the amount of RAM was not qualified by OS.
After the fact, I thought about the paging file size. But it was a new/clean install of win7sp1 x64, and whatever the default on paging size is, that's what it was left at; no changes. Both 2018 and 2021 ran with that setting, whatever it is. Yet on that platform 2018 ran, and 2021 did not. And page file thrashing tends to be evident on an HDD as the sound of seek movement gets continuous: there wasn't any of that apparent.
If memory serves, the amount of optimum page file size depends on the amount of RAM. I haven't checked, but for a 6gb RAM fit, 5.x available, what would be the recommended paging file size?
Hi David,
I can't speak to specifics on the paging file size as I haven't looked into it in detail. But, as a programmer with a history of operating system work, I can say that if you don't have enough memory for all the things requiring RAM, then as something gets to run and use RAM, something else may be swapped out to the disk. All this goes on behind the scenes in the OS.
It would not surprise me at all that ATI 2018 would require less RAM than ATI 2021. If the difference is such that the 6GB of RAM is not enough, that could generate a lot of swapping which can slow down the process immensely (ie, thrashing), especially if the drive being used for swapping is also the drive being backed up. Anyway, the performance is tied not so much to the size of the paging file, but to the size of available RAM.
Many years ago when I was working on new hardware and a new OS for a major company, my boss made the comment that memory was no longer an issue because it was so easy to just "add another memory card". What an idiot. That's like saying it's OK if your car gets only 2 miles to the gallon because there's always a gas station around the corner. Software efficiency is critical... yet so often overlooked. Rant over.
Hi Bruno,
Rant? I've done similar advisories myself, and I cannot argue with what you said.
The actual backup hardware configuration was: backup source: C drive - a 300Gb partition on a 500gb HDD. The backup target was an attached 1Tb usb HDD disk, with about 300Gb available. I set it up that way to minimise seek delays and try to maximise performance by pipe-lining the data.
More specifically, the the trigger for thinking RAM may be the problem was the size of the respective installation executables: 2021 at just less than 1Gb is nearly 40% larger than 2018, and if fully loaded in RAM would occupy something like 20% of available memory just for itself let alone anything else. Considering that the RAM has to hold the OS, the app and data heap, it seems likely that 6gb RAM really isn't enough in practice. Surprising that Acronis testing did not identify the limit before release.
In terms of adding another memory card - the slots are full, and at 10 years old even tho it's otherwise working fine, I probably could not find a compatible RAM set even if I went looking.
So, I guess I'll have to settle for using 2018 for a while yet.
David, if the PC is 10 years old then you would probably pay a lot more for any memory upgrades simply because these are now getting increasingly rare, especially compared to newer memory technologies.
I have been in similar scenarios with older hardware and tend to keep them only for non-critical purposes these days, i.e. acting as a printer server for an older non-wireless USB laser printer that only gets occasional use, doing some background grid computing tasks via the World Community Grid etc.
Running an older version of ATI on older hardware is a good mix too! I still have a copy of ATI 9.0 running on a Windows 2000 virtual machine via VMware!