IFW Imaging Speed

[Keith Weisshar]

Why does it take 22 minutes to backup 54GB using IFW 2.92 even though IFL 2.92 only takes 11 minutes to my external USB 3.0 drive using standard compression?

[mjnelson99]

I found that using IFL 292 booted from an SD card
is faster than IFW 292.

I will probably use IFW more frequently since I can still use my laptop
when imaging.
Mary

On 11/3/2014 5:47 AM, "Keith Weisshar" wrote:
> Why does it take 22 minutes to backup 54GB using IFW 2.92

even though IFL 2.92 only takes 11 minutes to my external USB 3.0

drive using standard compression?
>
>

[Mojidirulay]

I was thinking that as well.

[Fracso]

Same here, WinPE 2.92 rather slow in my Windows 7 machine, USB 3.0 connection, i get 18 MB/s with WinPE 5.1, 24 with WinPE 3.0 (with added USB 3.0 drivers). Validations are faster, 70 and 80 MB/s. Watching the leds in the external disk, they "move" in bursts when creating the image, most of the time they are steady (no activity).

[Brian K]

Frasco,

How are you determining your MB/sec figures? By looking at the Statistics readout of by dividing image size by time taken or something else?

[Fracso]

I forgot to post the IFL numbers for comparison, 35.2 and 88.6 (validate) MB/s. As all the image are the same size, times can be used to compare: IFL 7:48 min, WinPe3 11:18, WinPE 5.1 15:33. So I can confirm that IFL can be about twice as fast as IFW. MB is the size of the image, divided by the time reported by the program. These are relative numbers valid for my hardware, not absolute, can´t be compared with others but are useful to me.

[TeraByte Support(PP)]

What compression are you using? Does it make a difference with no compression or with Enhanced Speed - A?

What speed do you get in Windows?

[jelson]

Just installed IFW 2.92 this week and was wondering about the imaging speed.

In Windows 7 x64 with 256GB SSD -- imaged my Windows partition (56.3 GB: pagefile.sys = 512 MB & no hiberfil.sys) with default settings* to a mechanical internal drive (WD Black SATA III)

* (PHYLock @ defaults; PCompression = Standard; Omit Page File; Omit Hibernation)

IFW (32-bit) results: created a 36.6 GB image in 18:07 ==> by my calculation, that's 57,716 MB / 1086 s = 53.1 MB/s

Seems awfully slow! And I left the machine completely untouched during the process too.

Any suggestions...? possible reasons why IFW is slow? From reviews I've read, it should be faster than this.

[Kempy]

Good morning,

reading this thread, prompted me to do some test with IFL & IFW v2.92, as I had the assumption that something is strange with v2.92.

System is a HP ProBook Laptop, I5-2410m, 2.3GHz, Dual-Core with HT, 8GB RAM, incl.
-Intel Series 6 SATA AHCI Controller (driver v12.9.4.1000 - WHQL) for SATA and eSATA
-Startec 1-Port USB 3.0 Express Card with Renesas µPD720202 chipset @ PCIe 5Gb (driver v3.0.23.0 - WHQL)
-Win7Pro x64

Imaging an offline Win 8.1 installation on a eSATA SSD (SATA600@SATA300, limited by the external case) from an Win7Pro x64 installation with IFW (x64), compression is always standard, it makes no difference if the target is

a1) an external 3.5", 2TB, 7200RPM, HDD, connected via USB3.0, BOT transfer
I reach imaging/write speeds between 50-70MB/s as pointed out by the IFW statistics, but from other testing I know that this HDD can reach write speeds up to 170MB/s

a1.1)
Verifying (/v) the Image from a1, I got read speeds up to 180MB/s in IFW, which is close to the maximum for this ext. HDD.

a1.2)
Verifying B-F-B(/vb), Image file is read from the ext. HDD plus data is read from the ext. SDD for comparison, I got read speeds up to 180MB/s in IFW too, so it looks like that the ext. SSD is not limiting.

a1.3)
I did this image again with standard compression and without verifying and got
43479MB stored in 27443,8MB (compression ratio 37%) in 664s = 65,48MB/s (reading uncompressed data)
verifying (/v) this image file (43479MB@27443,8MB) separate, took 195s = 222,96MB@140,73MB /s

I monitored Win7 resource monitor's HDD E/A activity during this image process and found that the write speed is fluctuating between 120MB/s and 0MB/s (0MB/s for some seconds sometimes) constantly, with an average write speed of 41MB/s.
That is in line from 65,48MB/s read speed of uncompressed data, compressed by 37%, resulting in a write speed of 41MB/s for the compressed data.

a1.4)
I did this image again with compression set to Enhanced Speed - A and without verifying and got
43479MB stored in 29275,31MB (compression ratio 32,8%) in 311s = 139,8MB/s (reading uncompressed data)
Win7 resource monitor's HDD E/A activity reports an average write speed of 94,1MB/s (writing compressed data)

a1.5)
I did this image again with compression set to Enhanced Speed - B and without verifying and got
43479MB stored in 28634,5MB (compression ratio 34,1%) in 417s = 104,3MB/s (reading uncompressed data)
Win7 resource monitor's HDD E/A activity reports an average write speed of 68,7MB/s (writing compressed data)


Now the strange

b1)an internal 2.5" (Laptop), 1TB, 5400RPM, HDD, connected via SATA300
I reach imaging/write speeds between 50-70MB/s too as pointed out by the IFW statistics, which is close to the maximum write speed (80MB/s) of this Laptop HDD.

b1.1)
Verifying (/v) the Image from b1, I got read speeds up to 90MB/s in IFW which is the maximum for the int. Laptop HDD.

b1.2)
Verifying B-F-B(/vb) makes no difference to b1.1, as the read speed of the int. Laptop HDD is the limitation.

What makes me wonder is, that the imaging/write speed to the two different drives is near the same, I assume it should be much faster to the external 3.5", 2TB, 7200RPM, USB3.0 HDD.

Doing the same tests in IFW and IFL (v2.92) makes no big difference, I got imaging/write speeds between 50-70MB/s (to be more precise, IFW was 1:30min faster as IFL for 86959MB being imaged and verified (/v)).
That nothing I would worry about, I assume it depends how good the hardware/HDD controller/USB controller works with the drivers involved.

btw
IFD v2.92 is near close, 40-60MB/s imaging/write speed in Bios mode, but I can only test it to the int. Laptop HDD as the ext. USB3.0 HDD is not supported in IFD.

------


-------
@Frasco

I assume, the difference between PE3.0 (Win7) and PE5.1 (Win8.1) is the USB3.0 driver in use.

In Win7 the native vendor driver (Intel, Renesas/NEC, ASM, Fresco, etc.) is used, which are, from my experience, up to 30% faster than the generic USB3.0 driver from Microsoft in Win8.1.
And even you are useing the native vendor drivers in Win8.1 (and got it working), they are not as fast as in Win7.

G.

[Fracso]

Kempy wrote:
>
> I assume, the difference between PE3.0 (Win7) and PE5.1 (Win8.1) is the USB3.0 driver
> in use.
>
> In Win7 the native vendor driver (Intel, Renesas/NEC, ASM, Fresco, etc.) is used,
> which are, from my experience, up to 30% faster than the generic USB3.0 driver from
> Microsoft in Win8.1.
> And even you are useing the native vendor drivers in Win8.1 (and got it working),
> they are not as fast as in Win7.
>
> G.

Yes, i agree. I use Renesas x64 drivers for Windows 7.