12 hours to back up 215GB (135GB actual back up size)?
Trial version, normal compression, started at 10pm didn't get done until after 10am this morning!!! Brand new PC and server. Seems extremely inefficient.
The time the app takes to backup a full system and all user and program data will vary greatly from machine to machine. Each machine will have differing data sets. Some will contain large amounts of data that is already compressed like MP3, MP4 files, or MKV video files, or JPEG photo files. These compressed files do not further compress by using Acronis normal compression or any of the available compression levels. Attempting to do so will greatly increase the time it takes for the application to create a backup. Making a backup over a network connection to most NAS boxes is also slow by the shear nature of that operation unless of course you are backing up to a Windows Server. The total amount of RAM in a given machine is also a factor. There are many more factors as well involved in the process. It is best viewed like this, large amount of data to backup, large amount of time required. This way you won't be disappointed!
Yes, I understand backing up a large amount of data (724 GB in my case) will take a non-trivial amount of time. I'll live with what I need to, but I want to optimize what I can.
It's interesting that the OP's backup rate and mine are very close (17.9 GB per hour vs. 17.2). Doesn't seem to "vary greatly" although these are only two data points, and lots of variables are unknown/uncontrolled.
Are you sure it actually takes longer to compress, for example, a 10 MB text file (that could compress down to half the size) vs. a 10 MB zip file (that may not reduce in size at all, or might even get bigger)? My understanding is that a sufficiently state of the art compression algorithm would run in essentially the same amount of time for both files, although that time would for sure be wasted on the zip file. As I also mentioned in my original thread, I would expect if compression is the limiting speed factor, the CPU would be maxed out by ATI, but at best it is using 50% of its CPU core at any given time, usually less than 20%. I've got 16 GB of physical RAM in my laptop, so doubtful that's a severe limitation.
Per my original thread and above, ATI is NOT using the capability of my network's transfer speed at all. I can do lots of other network file/data transfers between my laptop and the NAS that reach 60-80% of the available network bandwidth, while an ATI backup uses less than 20%, sometimes it sits at less than 5%. It just doesn't seem to be sending much data across the network.
Honestly, I've never really paid too much attention to the speed of my backups. Previous backups have taken time, for sure, but I really can't recall even the biggest ones (500 GB) taking more than a day, whether with prior versions of ATI or other backup tools. I certainly don't grok what's going on in my situation, but it seems off to be taking 42 hours.
Kevin's report is one I have seen with a similar rate of backup, which is interesting to me. What is the typical rate of backup (GB per hour) that you see for your ATI backups? What about others? It's hard to find performance reports in the forum (perhaps they're buried in other related threads).
It's kind of a moot point for me, however. The ATI 2015 release is simply unacceptable to me. I want a full-featured utility with lots of control of the backups, not a stripped-down backup program with an interface for dummies. I think I'll soon be switching to something else, and I guess I'll see if the speed is comparable or not.
Anyway, not adding much to Kevin's thread...
Points well taken, here is what the ATI 2014 documentation has to say about backup performance:
http://www.acronis.com/en-us/support/documentation/ATIH2014/index.html#…
You are backing up to an NAS device. Many users have speed issues with backup to networked storage and there are a multitude of issues that contribute to those problems. The most common is the hardware itself. If you have an older router in your network path for example, one that is say 3 years old or older that device is to at least some degree a bottleneck. Often times initial transfer speed will be near connection saturation and then gradually degrade over time because of the router being overloaded with data. In some cases a backup can be completely disrupted and fail in this situation. Solution, purchase a new higher grade router. Switches are another speed limiting factor in a network path. If you are using CIFS/SMB to transmit data there is a well known conflict between Windows and SAMBA that degrades transfer rate especially on large amounts of data.