Restore: Need advise on retiring current drive, replacing it with new one
My considered approach is to:
1) Save my current OS (Win 7 x64 Ultimate) drive.
2) Restore to newly acquired drive (SATA III, 512GB, 10K rpm).
Questions:
1) Is the above approach feasible?
2) If so, my intent is to format the new drive prior to restore, using either 8192 or 16384 cluster size. Space consumption is not an issue for me. Performance is. A need-for-speed. When I perform the restore, will it reset the cluster size back to the size used at the time of the original save? (In fact, if I can find it, I'll find a reliable high-speed HDD with a sector size > 512 (since it is static from the factory.))
3) Also, if above is feasible, the old drive shall go to off-line storage, and act as a plug-n-play operational restore option. At that point, I will also have acquired a new 4TB for data capture/on-line retention; then integrate it into my backup strategy as well.
Thank you for your guidance.
Thank you for the information.
A word from another forum... :)
Specifically, cluster size is established at the time of HDD (or SSD for that matter) formatting. It ranges from a few bytes to 64K size. The key is, how much data is read or written with each individual transaction. The OS bundles up the data to be written or read before passing along to the application for processing.
So, if improved performance is needed, then it is beneficial to issue one write or one read, to a size that moves the most amount of data, and does so in a contiguous way (e.g. fewer fragments of the same file scattered throughout the drive.)
Now the impact. This is not always the most efficient use of disk storage. Reason is that if a file (large though it may be) consumes 4.25 clusters, then 75% of a cluster is inaccessible by anything (called slack). The larger the cluster size, potentially the larger the slack and therefore an increase in space consumption.
One other impact area. Sadly, most applications bought and sold on the market today, while providing varying levels of efficiency in BUS and CPU utilization, I/O is a sourly lost art in the development world. The ability of an application to manage I/O specific to the media on which it depends, would do more to improve efficiency and speed in today's world than any amount of hardware thrown out as a solution. I make no judgement on Acronis or any other application, simply because this weakness is endemic within the software world today (including OS's).
With that in mind, there remains a small measure of speed improvement gained by setting the cluster size. Especially since sector size cannot be altered (set at the drive factory at 512 bytes on average). So, the result is a contiguous read/write of data if the cluster size if 4096 or some variant of that.
The key here is, how does Acronis perform the restore. If it resets the target location to the cluster size of the source, then there is no gain. If it does not, then perhaps a small amount of gain is realized following a successful restore.
As to SSD usage, I have SSD drives, and know the efficiency of those. Sadly, my luck with them has been less than optimal. One has failed, one is starting to fail, and another is working great. Because the MTBF was so high (50,000hr+) and the results so low (<17,000hr or 2 years); the loss has been extremely costly, to say the least - even with such a robust and supportive backup plan in place. Hours of recovery on a system used by others, and operating in a 24x7x365 mode, simply is not in the cards right now. (make no mistake, I use a very reliable UPS with very good current modulation, along with appropriate monitoring products to alert me to issues both in power, CPU, Bus, Graphics - and SSD has been the only one to show up on a regular basis.)
So, while the efficiences of SSD are known, my current path is to optimize for mechnical drives instead.
Thank you for your guidance and support. It works towards my objective and was informative!
Do you have an SATA III drive in mind? Just curious as I am not aware of any 10K SATA III drives on the market. 10K drives are used primarily in server configurations and use SAS i-SCSI interfaces.
I don't think TI will change an already set cluster size but I will admit I have never tried it so I could be wrong here. I can say that if you have any older applications your planning on using they may not work on a disk with a cluster size of 512 or above. I wouldn't think you are running anything that old but one never knows!
From a speed standpoint a single modern generation SSD will far outperform any single HDD out there. It would take at a minimum a 3 HDD raid 5 setup to approach the speed of current SSD's on the market today.
All things considered, your response is right on target!
Yes, I'm interested in a SATA III 1TB 10K rpm drive, though the decision has not yet been made to acquire. Price/GB and Price/performance ratios do not really calculate well for my budget. Though the 500GB version may. Looking at that now.
Though I should provide some additional information (to name only one):
1) WD Velociraptor WD1000DHTZ 1TB 3.5" SATA III Hard Drive (it is wrapped by a heat sink that allows it to fit in a standard 3.5" drive bay, the actual card is the 2" variety.)
1a) Rated at 10K rotational speed.
1b) Designed as SATA 3, 64MB cache, with transfer rates of 6Gb/s.
1c) It also comes in 500GB, 250GB flavors.
1d) The 1TB size sells for $240 and some change.
If interested, I can provide the link to a buy place.
You mentioned "...already set cluster size..." I think you meant sector size. There is a distinct difference. If interested in getting a clear picture of the specs for your drives, try out HD Tune Pro. Specifically sector size is established at the factory, while the cluster size may be adjusted by the OS formatting of the drive. The cluster size (common default of 4096 or 4K). The sector size is commonly set at 512B (or 0.5K) at the factory. A cluster consists of multiple sectors though a 1:1 may be set at time for formatting. All this is based on NTFS formatting.
As to performance, absolutely correct! SSD also outperforms any jump drive I am aware of by at least 4x, even with USB 3.0. They simply can't match the speed of internal and optimized, with steady clean power, storage devices.
Jim,
I did write that wrong, did mean sector size. I have seen the drives you speak of but have no first hand experience with them but I will say I have been a
WD fan for years and have owned used the performance Velociraptor models in the past with very good results so am sure you won't be disappointed.
If you might have an old drive laying around which you could test out your idea on, you could at least answer your question about the app possibly changing the sector size when restoring a backup. I believe that is highly unlikely but again I have never done it so can't say for sure.
I am curious to know which SSDs you have been using. I have used Kingtson, Crucial and Samsung. In the last 18 months I have exclusively used Samsung (840 EVO and now 850 EVO) .
Samsung Magician software has a function to optimize for reliability (although after I set that up, I go back and turn indexing back on). It also has an option to Overprovision which is supposed to aid in longevity.
The only SSD to ever fail on me so far is a Kingston drive. The 64GB Kingston drive I purchased in August of 2011 is running my mother's laptop now though, so not knocking the company.
I am a shameless SSD fanboy at this point, and even the new Raptor drive you mention can't come close to matching the speed.
On the other hand, if I buy a platter drive for storage :) it's definitely WD.
For my purpose at the time, I bought the Kingston SSDNow V series (1:128GB and 2:64GB). It is the 128GB which remains viable at this time. The 64GB were acquired first, right at 26mo ago actually. It is 1 64GB that has failed, and the other 64GB that is apparently throwing errors (both read/write). I've never taken a look at Samsung, though Crucial (at the time of purchase) didn't seem to have the same reliability numbers.
Thanks for the heads-up on Samsung though. I'll take a look at the Samsung cost. Only a 512GB will do now given the maturity of my rig and needs.
Cost was a big factor in my decision to switch to Samsung, and my understanding is that reliability leans pretty heavily on the type of NAND chips that are used in the various drives. I confess that if money were no object I would likely try the Intel drives, have seen very good reviews on them regarding performance and stability.
Oh, yea - I'd have to agree! Intel has some great review, but a little rich for my blood...