Aller au contenu principal

Acronis true image 2013 (WD edition) full local backup took 36 hrs compared to the usual 4 hrs. Why?

Thread needs solution

I only use CD boot drive and full image backups. This super slow backup size was 277GB from a 640GB WD HD. The previous backup (normal speed) was 243GB using the same configuration (win7 pro 32bit, quadcore CPU, external 3TB WD HD connected by USB2). Nothing changed to my knowledge. The PC's HD is error free and was defragmented prior to the backup. When the backup started it showed 18 hrs. I was alarmed by that, but it actually took twice as long.

I'm currently validating the backup, about 50% progress after 1 hr, about what i would expect. What is going on?

Thanks!

0 Users found this helpful

Jacek P, welcome to these user forums.

Please see KB document: 2201: Support for OEM Versions of Acronis Products which shows that support for OEM versions of the Acronis product such as yours provided by WD is provided by the vendors who supply it.

Without any log file information for your backup task it is very difficult to say why the backup took such a long time, but this could be caused if any bad sectors are encountered during the process, as this could cause Acronis to switch to using sector-by-sector mode for the backup, which in turn would give a backup size equal to the full partition size where the sector problem was encountered, so potentially equal in size to the source drive size.

If you are booting from CD to make the backups, then you should check the Logs available in the offline application before you close it and restart the system.  For bootable media the logs are only available while the media is active, they are not saved to view later.

Steve, thanks so much for this prompt assistance. I didn't know about that log thing, too bad i didn't check it. There size of the backup is 277GB, while the disk is 640GB, so the sector-by-sector mode was not enabled, i guess. I thought about bad sectors and i did CHKDSK afterwards and that showed no bad sectors, however, SMART does show 1 reallocation event that i don't remember seeing before.

i googles some more before and some people talked about enabling highest USB speed in BIOS, but i don't seem to have that option. Can one USB port go bad? is there a way to test USB communication at various USB ports?

Thanks again!

 

Jacek, good news that the backup file size was not over large, so sector by sector shouldn't have been involved.  When using CHKDSK did you use the /R flag to check for bad sectors?

Settings for USB speed would be specific to your particular BIOS and depend on whether the provider and hardware would support such settings, I don't remember seeing anything like that on any of my systems.

I would guess that a single USB port could go bad but again I am not aware of any built-in diagnostics that would test USB ports.  The simplest tests would be to connect the same USB device to each port in turn and transfer a folder of mixed size files to the device / from the device and note the times taken for each port.  Transfer time differs for different sizes of files and may also differ with direction of flow too.

Regarding the speed difference, it's possible that when you connected the USB drive it reverted to USB 1 instead of USB 2. That happens occasionally on my PC: even though I routinely use the same external drives connected via USB 2, every now and then when I connect one I get the Windows message that the drive could run faster in a USB 2 port. I disconnect it, reconnect, and it's back to USB 2 as usual. Strange.

You should thoroughly check the drives for errors, just in case.

From an administrative command prompt, run chkdsk /r on each partition of the internal drive, and on the external HD. If there are hidden partitions, assign letters to them so you can chkdsk.
Also run a drive checking utility from the drive manufacturer, as those sometimes catch errors missed by chkdsk.

Don't connect via a hub, a port in a monitor, or a USB extension cord, etc. Connect the external drive directly to a USB port on the rear of the computer case.

 

Initially i liked the USB1.1 vs USB2 idea untill i did calculations. it takes about 51hrs to transfer 277GB over the USB1.1 speed. the actual time was slightly under 36hrs.

furthermore, i checked the USB using HDDscan tool and it read the external HD at the speed of 35MB/s, typical for USB2 HD from what i understand. at that speed the backup would take under 3 hrs.  there are no problems i can find with the external HD either, except it's USB3 connected via USB2 port. I have to get that USB3 i guess.

 

Jacek, the USB 3.0 power drain on your USB 2.0 port(s) may be a factor here if your external drive is being powered directly from the port and not using its own power supply?

See the following taken from the USB 3.0 Wiki pages about the power consumption / requirements.

Power and charging

USB 3.0 increases the current limit from the levels defined by the USB 2.0 specification. Current draw for low-power SuperSpeed devices (ones that are limited to 1 unit load of power) is now 150mA, an increase from 100mA defined in USB 2.0. For high-power SuperSpeed devices, 6 unit loads may be consumed, for a limit of 900mA, 4.5W (4.5 watts), an increase from the limit of 500mA defined in USB 2.0.[9]:section 9.2.5.1 Power Budgeting

In addition, USB 3.0 ports may also implement other USB specifications for increased power, including USB Battery Charging Specification for up to 1.5A or 7.5W (7.5 watts) of power, or USB Power Delivery for up to 100W of power.[11]

thank you for the info. i actually googled for the USB2 vs USB3 compatibility last night too. the external HD has its own power supply, so it should not be an issue. it wasn't an issue during the last back ups either (i did several on this system). no biggy, to avoid it in the future, i'll get USB3 card.

thank you all for replies!

BTW, Happy Holiday!