Anyone use Paragon Backup? I'm testing it now on my "other" PC now. With this, one can do uncompressed backups (not possible with Win7 backup).
http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/ This version is free, too. Seems full featured so far.... ---- "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > I found this: > > "Under Windows 7 RTM, I can use file copy to copy 250GB of files to my > external eSata drive in about one hour at 72 MB/s. > > When I try to use Windows Backup, it takes 14 hours to backup the same amount > of data (i.e. about 5 MB/s). > > It looks like Windows 7 is trying to compress each file individually and is > doing alot of Random Disk I/O. > > How can I speed up Windows 7 Windows Backup to get anywhere near approaching > the 72 MB/s from a straight file copy? > > Are there any advanced options (e.g. in the Registry) that can be changed to > improve this terrible performance? > > Having being forced by the OS to discontinue the previous use of reliable > Tape backup via NTBackup, this is being to look like a conspiracy to force > users to go and buy real Backup software from the likes of Semantec rather > use the rapidly dwindling and increasing noddy backup options provided by > Microsoft." > > This is exactly what I am finding. I probably should use Windows Easy > Transfer as it is more like a file-to-file copy. Now, if I kill this, all of > the last 30 hours will be wasted, and I still 20% more to go! And this was > meant to be an extra backup! > > What exactly are beta testers doing for MS these days? Aren't they giving > meaningful feedback any more? Is MS just living in a world all by itself? I > hate to be a hater...but DAMN! > > > > > > ---- "Anthony Q. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > But that's always been the case with incremental backups. I've backed this > > stuff up before under XP and it was never this slow...this is beyond > > ridiculous. Also, it takes forever to find how to turn the exact image > > off, which it does by default along with a regular backup, on the first > > time. MS just went way stoopid on this. I've basically lost two days > > fooling with this. Imagine how the restore would be. A complete > > backup/restore using Windows 7 would take a damn week on any modern hard > > drive that has zillions of jpegs and videos. This cannot stand. > > > > BTW, I've been googling after I first posted...this is all over the net now. > > > > ---- Brian Weeden <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't have a ton of experience with Win7 backups but I think the first > > > time it takes a lot longer than it does afterwards (or at least it > > > should). > > > This is because the first time it copies everything, whereas each > > > successive > > > time it should only copy those files which have changed. So unless a > > > large > > > portion of that 350GB is constantly changing, future backups should be > > > fine. > > > > > > It also might make a difference if you have a lot of small files in the > > > backup. > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > Brian Weeden > > > Technical Advisor > > > Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> > > > +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada > > > +1 (202) 683-8534 US > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Anthony Q. Martin > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Gee Whiz....I have about 350 GB to back up to an external USB HD. Win7 > > > > is > > > > working on this now for over 12 hours! Still only at 78% done. Was > > > > worse > > > > when I let it do an image too...so bad that I had to cancel that and > > > > start > > > > over. > > > > > > > > Is this right? > > > > > > >
