Drive Image 2002 with slow transfer rates...
Michael Westphal
My Drive Image needs 1,5 hours to create an image on my 2nd harddrive. The
transfer rate is only appr. 170 MB/minute.
A friend of mine has a similar system and here Drive Image only needs 15
minutes for the same work (Image-file is about 6 GB in seize).
Here the transfer rate is about 580 MB/minute.
Why is that?
I have read in this group a thread form May this year and it seemed very
interesting.
It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
I have all done this like recommended, but the increase in speed was only
from 170 to 215 MB/minute.
And the total time is still 1,5 hours for 6 GB.
In this thread it was spoken of appr. 1200 MB/minute.
My System:
Windows XP, NTFS two HDD 80 GB each. the 2nd HDD is only used for storing
the image file.
partitions (all on HDD one)
c: (10 GB)
d:(swap, is not included in making an image)
e: (15 GB)
f: (3 GB)
Lil' Dave
you're comparing it to. Nor was it noted on either system how its setup to
the do the imaging. such as options. In the final analysis, the confidence
factor in restoration is what's important, not how fast the backup is.
Dave
"Michael Westphal" <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:3f6414e9$0$23082$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
Michael Westphal
what system parameters would be significant to watch or compare? What
hardware the
transfer rate depends on?
I have just exported the Systeminfo to a textfile. But it is huge: 320 kb.
What section do you want a look at. I would paste it in the next posting.
My friend's system is actually a little older. It has an AMD 1800+, my
computer has an AMD 2100+ cpu.
We both have the same compression selected for DI to operate.
I think speed is an important factor for the quality of a backup-software.
It is a huge difference whether I need 90 Minutes or 15 Minutes. And the
amount of data will increase soon on my system.
Michael
"Lil' Dave" <got...@nomail.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:AWU8b.12583$pe.12502@lakeread06...
Rod Speed
Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote in
message news:3f6414e9$0$23082$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
> My Drive Image needs 1,5 hours to create an image on my
> 2nd harddrive. The transfer rate is only appr. 170 MB/minute.
Thats pathetic with the two hard drives in the same system.
> A friend of mine has a similar system and here Drive Image only
> needs 15 minutes for the same work (Image-file is about 6 GB
> in seize). Here the transfer rate is about 580 MB/minute.
Thats much more reasonable and some get quite a bit more
than that transfer rate too with a decent modern system.
> Why is that?
Basically its DI having a massive brain fart
about what the hard drive subsystem can do.
> I have read in this group a thread form May
> this year and it seemed very interesting.
> It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
Yep, thats the problem.
> I have all done this like recommended, but the increase
> in speed was only from 170 to 215 MB/minute.
> And the total time is still 1,5 hours for 6 GB.
You sure the /ide=ON switch was actually used ?
That may just be the variation from try to try.
Safest to apply the switch to the rescue floppy.
Easier to be sure you have got it being used with
the floppys. Editing the virtual boot isnt as easy
and easier to think you've changed it when you havent.
> In this thread it was spoken of appr. 1200 MB/minute.
Yeah, seen that myself.
> My System:
> Windows XP, NTFS two HDD 80 GB each.
Thats a relatively decent system from your other post.
Should do the decent thruput rates. Most likely you
just havent managed to get it to use the /IDE switch.
> the 2nd HDD is only used for storing the image file.
> partitions (all on HDD one)
> c: (10 GB)
> d:(swap, is not included in making an image)
> e: (15 GB)
> f: (3 GB)
Thats all fine and isnt the problem.
> what system parameters would be significant to watch or compare?
Just make sure that the /IDE switch is actually being used.
> What hardware the transfer rate depends on?
Basically what the hard drive subsystem
can do. Your system is fine for that.
> I have just exported the Systeminfo to a textfile. But it is huge: 320 kb.
> What section do you want a look at. I would paste it in the next posting.
Dont worry about it, check that the /IDE has been done properly.
> My friend's system is actually a little older. It has
> an AMD 1800+, my computer has an AMD 2100+ cpu.
Thats fine, plenty capable of a decent thruput.
> We both have the same compression selected for DI to operate.
> I think speed is an important factor for the quality of a backup-software.
> It is a huge difference whether I need 90 Minutes or 15 Minutes. And the
> amount of data will increase soon on my system.
Yep, bet you just havent got it to see the /IDE switch.
Michael Westphal
thanks for your help!
I have applied the switch to the rescue floppy!
(by editing the autoexec.bat's last row on both disks: pqdi /ide=on)
But my transfer rate was at the end of the process at only 214 MB/minute.
I'm quite frustrated!
Is there an option in the BIOS or something I can change?
(Up to now I haven't done such changes!!!)
Why is it that the speed at other computers is so much higher?
I'm worried of the fact, that my data will grow soon having started with
digital photographing and mp3-saving of my best audio-cd's. What time will
it take DI to image e.g. 80 GB to my 2nd hdd?
Many thanks for your help!
best wishes!
Michael
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bk1ao6$nth4n$1...@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
Bishoop
Open your autoexec.bat file that you modified. Do a copy and past into a
new posting here and let's take a look at it.
Rod Speed
> Dear Rod,
> thanks for your help!
> I have applied the switch to the rescue floppy!
> (by editing the autoexec.bat's last row on both disks: pqdi /ide=on)
> But my transfer rate was at the end of the process
> at only 214 MB/minute. I'm quite frustrated!
Yeah, I would be too.
> Is there an option in the BIOS or something I can change?
> (Up to now I haven't done such changes!!!)
How do the drives show up on the black bios screen at boot time ?
You may not have use an 80 wire cable to the drives and
so you arent getting whats usually called ATA100 or UDMA5
etc shown on the black bios screen next to the drives.
> Why is it that the speed at other computers is so much higher?
It may be as basic as the ribbon cable used.
If it isnt that, say something about the actual motherboard
being used and the actual drives being used.
You may have disabled DMA in the bios, but thats not common.
> I'm worried of the fact, that my data will grow soon having started
> with digital photographing and mp3-saving of my best audio-cd's.
> What time will it take DI to image e.g. 80 GB to my 2nd hdd?
The speed seen with the other older PC
is pretty typical for that vintage of system.
Rod Speed
Mark M <MarkM_csiphs...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in message news:93F6B6D8...@130.133.1.4...
> Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote
>> My Drive Image needs 1,5 hours to create an image on my
>> 2nd harddrive. The transfer rate is only appr. 170 MB/minute.
>> A friend of mine has a similar system and here Drive Image
>> only needs 15 minutes for the same work (Image-file is about
>> 6 GB in seize). Here the transfer rate is about 580 MB/minute.
> Getting slightly off topic - it's been a while since I saw
> Drive Image. ISTR that it had a Windows interface and
> then, presumably, it saved various parameters to carry
> out the user's requests and then it did these in DOS.
> Is this correct
Yes. Tho it is possible to just boot the DOS rescue floppys and
do the imaging manually from there. Still a crude GUI, but on DOS.
And with 2002, if you arent imaging the boot partition, it
wont bother with DOS, it will do the imaging at the Win level.
> or am I presuming too much about the way Drive Image works?
Nope.
> Even if it is correct for an older version of Drive Image as I saw, is it true now?
Yes, you can use it that way with 2002.
> In other words, can the current Drive Image copy and generally manage
> partitions from within Windows without having to boot to DOS (including
> copying the system partition which it is actually running from)?
You need Drive Image 7 to be able to image the boot
partition at the Win level. And it only runs on XP and 2K.
V2i Protector, also from powerquest, will also
do incremental image files and image in the
background while the system is still being used too.
Michael Westphal
here is the autoexec.bat on my first disk (DriveImage Disk 1/2, bootable):
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $P$G
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM -- Put keyboard codes (xx) and --
REM -- code page variables (yyy) here. --
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM MODE CON CP PREP=((yyy) EGA.CPI)
REM MODE CON CP SEL=yyy
REM KEYB xx,yyy
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM -- Put network or CD-ROM drivers here. --
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM Windows DOS:
REM MSCDEX.EXE /D:driver_name [/L:drive_letter] [/M:buffers]
REM Caldera DOS:
REM NWCDEX.EXE /D:driver_name [/L:drive_letter] [/M:buffers]
MOUSE
SET TZ=WN-1WS-2,M3.5.0/02:00,M10.5.0/03:00
ECHO.
ECHO Insert Drive Image Disk 2 (Program)
ECHO.
ECHO.
ECHO *** Press Any Key to Continue ***
ECHO.
PAUSE >NUL
ECHO Drive Image 2002
ECHO Copyright 1994-2002, PowerQuest Corporation.
ECHO All rights reserved.
ECHO.
ECHO Loading. Please wait...
ECHO.
PQDI /IDE=ON
and this one is on my 2nd disk (DriveImage Disk 2/2):
@ECHO OFF
PROMPT $P$G
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM -- Put keyboard codes (xx) and --
REM -- code page variables (yyy) here. --
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM MODE CON CP PREP=((yyy) EGA.CPI)
REM MODE CON CP SEL=yyy
REM KEYB xx,yyy
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM -- Put network or CD-ROM drivers here. --
REM -------------------------------------------------------
REM Windows DOS:
REM MSCDEX.EXE /D:driver_name [/L:drive_letter] [/M:buffers]
REM Caldera DOS:
REM NWCDEX.EXE /D:driver_name [/L:drive_letter] [/M:buffers]
MOUSE
SET TZ=WN-1WS-2,M3.5.0/02:00,M10.5.0/03:00
ECHO.
ECHO Insert Drive Image Disk 2 (Program)
ECHO.
ECHO.
ECHO *** Press Any Key to Continue ***
ECHO.
PAUSE >NUL
ECHO Drive Image 2002
ECHO Copyright 1994-2002, PowerQuest Corporation.
ECHO All rights reserved.
ECHO.
ECHO Loading. Please wait...
ECHO.
PQDI /IDE=ON
Many thanks for your help!!!
"Bishoop" <no...@none.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:w6mdnRKhPZp...@giganews.com...
Michael Westphal
>
> How do the drives show up on the black bios screen at boot time ?
>
Pri. Master Disk: LBA, ATA 133 80 GB
Pri. Slave Disk: LBA, ATA 100 82 GB
Sec. Master Disk: CD-RW, ATA 33
Sec. Slave Disk: DVD, ATA 33
And in BIOS Setup:
Primary Master UDMA [AUTO]
Primary Slave UDMA [AUTO]
Secondary Master UDMA [AUTO]
Secondary Slave UDMA [AUTO]
> You may not have use an 80 wire cable to the drives and
> so you arent getting whats usually called ATA100 or UDMA5
> etc shown on the black bios screen next to the drives.
>
> > Why is it that the speed at other computers is so much higher?
>
> It may be as basic as the ribbon cable used.
>
> If it isnt that, say something about the actual motherboard
> being used and the actual drives being used.
>
> You may have disabled DMA in the bios, but thats not common.
It doesn't seen so, does it?
>
> > I'm worried of the fact, that my data will grow soon having started
> > with digital photographing and mp3-saving of my best audio-cd's.
> > What time will it take DI to image e.g. 80 GB to my 2nd hdd?
>
> The speed seen with the other older PC
> is pretty typical for that vintage of system.
>
Many thanks for your help!
Michael
Frank Pyatt
went from 88MB/min to 785MB/min. Still not near the speeds other people are
reporting but damn, what an improvement!!
Thanks guys,
FRP
"Michael Westphal" <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:3f6414e9$0$23082$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
Michael Westphal
This is the overwiew of my systeminformation
(sorry, it is in German)
Betriebssystemname Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 Build 2600
Betriebssystemhersteller Microsoft Corporation
Systemname ARBEITSZIMMER
Systemhersteller VIA Technologies, Inc.
Systemmodell VT8367-8233
Systemtyp X86-basierter PC
Prozessor x86 Family 6 Model 6 Stepping 2 AuthenticAMD ~1737 Mhz
BIOS-Version/-Datum Award Software International, Inc. 6.00 PG, 12.03.2002
SMBIOS-Version 2.2
Windows-Verzeichnis C:\WINDOWS
Systemverzeichnis C:\WINDOWS\System32
Startgerät \Device\HarddiskVolume1
Gebietsschema Deutschland
Hardwareabstraktionsebene Version = "5.1.2600.1106 (xpsp1.020828-1920)"
Benutzername ARBEITSZIMMER\Michael
Zeitzone Westeuropäische Sommerzeit
Gesamter realer Speicher 512,00 MB
Verfügbarer realer Speicher 322,73 MB
Gesamter virtueller Speicher 1,72 GB
Verfügbarer virtueller Speicher 1,42 GB
Größe der Auslagerungsdatei 1,22 GB
Auslagerungsdatei D:\pagefile.sys
Both my friend and I have an AWAD BIOS
I have a EPOX 8K3A DDR333 board, he has a MSI board.
DI 2002 kompression is the same ("high")
Rod Speed
>> How do the drives show up on the black bios screen at boot time ?
> Pri. Master Disk: LBA, ATA 133 80 GB
> Pri. Slave Disk: LBA, ATA 100 82 GB
Thats fine.
> Sec. Master Disk: CD-RW, ATA 33
> Sec. Slave Disk: DVD, ATA 33
> And in BIOS Setup:
> Primary Master UDMA [AUTO]
> Primary Slave UDMA [AUTO]
That too.
> Secondary Master UDMA [AUTO]
> Secondary Slave UDMA [AUTO]
>> You may not have use an 80 wire cable to the drives and
>> so you arent getting whats usually called ATA100 or UDMA5
>> etc shown on the black bios screen next to the drives.
>>> Why is it that the speed at other computers is so much higher?
>> It may be as basic as the ribbon cable used.
>> If it isnt that, say something about the actual motherboard
>> being used and the actual drives being used.
You didnt say what motherboard you are using.
>> You may have disabled DMA in the bios, but thats not common.
> It doesn't seen so, does it?
Yeah, looks fine. Tho that may just be a quirk of how
the bios reports the drives. There should be a setting
in the bios for DMA too, usually in the advanced section.
You could try asking powerquest, but you'd need to know
what your motherboard is and the drive model numbers.
>>> I'm worried of the fact, that my data will grow soon having started
>>> with digital photographing and mp3-saving of my best audio-cd's.
>>> What time will it take DI to image e.g. 80 GB to my 2nd hdd?
>> The speed seen with the other older PC
>> is pretty typical for that vintage of system.
> Many thanks for your help!
No problem, thats what these technical newsgroups are for.
Rod Speed
What have you done about the VIA 4 in 1 chipset drivers ?
Try the latest from the Epox site.
If that doesnt fix it, try asking powerquest about it.
Bishoop
"Frank Pyatt" <frp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:GB39b.256$hF3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
| This is amazing: I applied the autoexec.bat mods as described below and I
| went from 88MB/min to 785MB/min. Still not near the speeds other people
are
| reporting but damn, what an improvement!!
|
| Thanks guys,
| FRP
Are you using high compression and the other option is called something like
error checking or disk checking?
Try turning these off and see if you "average" transfer speed doesn't
improve.
Michael Westphal
> > I have a EPOX 8K3A DDR333 board, he has a MSI board.
>
> What have you done about the VIA 4 in 1 chipset drivers ?
> Try the latest from the Epox site.
>
Hello Rod,
you do mean I should download a newer driver for my system?
What is "VIA 4 in 1 chipset"?
Is that what I have?
Many thanks!
Michael
Mike Tomlinson
Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>Here are some further information about my system:
>Systemhersteller VIA Technologies, Inc.
>Systemmodell VT8367-8233
You have a VIA chipset *spit*. It's possible that high-speed DMA
transfers won't happen until the (Windows) 4-in-1 drivers have loaded.
Because PQDI runs under DOS, it may be assuming a 'standard' IDE chipset
when the /ide:yes parameter is invoked, and if it doesn't recognise the
chipset, doesn't apply any speed-up tweaks to preserve data security.
--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Mike Tomlinson
Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
/ide:yes worked for me with DI2002. Made a huge difference.
Michael Westphal
"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:qGsZVgB+5gZ$Ew...@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <3f6414e9$0$23082$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net>,
> Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>
> >It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
>
> /ide:yes worked for me with DI2002. Made a huge difference.
>
What is the correct syntax: "/ide=on" or "/ide:yes"
Or doesn't it matter?
Greetings,
Michael
Michael Westphal
now I have the latest 4 in 1 driver for my EPOX 8K3A-Board.
But I'm afraid of installing it.
I've read something about that it might happen to be necessasry to new
install the Windows.
Are you experianced in such things?
Michael
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bk2pa4$ogde9$1...@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
Michael Westphal
Now I have installed the latest 4 in 1 servicepack form epox.
But the result in sobering. No increase in speed.
Now I don't know what else could be done.
Best wishes,
Michael
Bishoop
When I went through the same thing your going through the syntax for:
DI 2002: /ide=on
DI 5: /ide=yes
All my systems have had VIA chipsets with various versions of their infamous
4n1 drivers.
Without going through the whole thread again are you using compression and
the check disk for errors options? As I recall those made quite a
difference. Especially the check disk for errors option on large
partitions.
The number you see as the transfer rate is an average. Therefore if you do
a check for errors option before the transfer your "average" transfer speed
will be way down. This is because the time to do the error checking is
calculated into the average transfer speed.
As I recall my transfer "time" for about 6GB without compression and no
error checking was about 5 minutes. That's with 7200 RPM ATA100 HDDs.
Mike Tomlinson
Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>What is the correct syntax: "/ide=on" or "/ide:yes"
Either is supposed to work, but I can confirm that "/ide=yes" (not
"ide:yes", sorry) worked for me. At least, that's what I have written
on my DI2002 floppy.
Rod Speed
>>> I have a EPOX 8K3A DDR333 board, he has a MSI board.
>> What have you done about the VIA 4 in 1 chipset drivers ?
>> Try the latest from the Epox site.
> you do mean I should download a newer driver for my system?
Yes.
> What is "VIA 4 in 1 chipset"?
Its the driver thats a 4 in 1 driver.
> Is that what I have?
You certainly have a VIA chipset motherboard.
They are rather notorious for quirky stuff with
the hard drive subsystem performance.
Rod Speed
> Now I have installed the latest 4 in 1 servicepack form epox.
> But the result in sobering. No increase in speed.
> Now I don't know what else could be done.
Ask PowerQuest. Its likely a known problem with
those VIA chipsets. They may have a fix for that problem.
Rod Speed
> Mike Tomlinson <mi...@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote
>> Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>>> It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
>> /ide:yes worked for me with DI2002. Made a huge difference.
> What is the correct syntax: "/ide=on" or "/ide:yes"
> Or doesn't it matter?
It doesnt seem to matter, but you should try the one you havent used.
Rod Speed
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@NOSPAM.jasper.org.uk> wrote
in message news:uGnYluBS+gZ$Ew...@jasper.org.uk...
> Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> writes
>> Systemhersteller VIA Technologies, Inc.
>> Systemmodell VT8367-8233
> You have a VIA chipset *spit*. It's possible that high-speed DMA
> transfers won't happen until the (Windows) 4-in-1 drivers have loaded.
Trouble is that they wont even be used when doing the imaging from
DOS and thats necessary for imaging the boot drive with DI 2002.
> Because PQDI runs under DOS, it may be assuming a
> 'standard' IDE chipset when the /ide:yes parameter is
> invoked, and if it doesn't recognise the chipset, doesn't
> apply any speed-up tweaks to preserve data security.
Or isnt even using DMA at all in that situation most likely.
Certainly worth asking powerquest about that problem.
Rod Speed
> Now I have installed the latest 4 in 1 servicepack form epox.
> But the result in sobering. No increase in speed.
My brain fart there. That wont help when imaging at the DOS level,
because those drivers wont be being used, they're Win drivers.
Try creating an image of the non boot partition at the
Win level, just to see if that does give a decent thruput.
If it does, you could have a very small bootable Win
partition that you boot when you want to image the main
Win partition. Clumsy, but it may give decent thruput.
I'd still ask PowerQuest because they may have
a patch for PQI or something just for that problem.
Bishoop
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bk5b6g$p9fkc$1...@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
Not to belabor a point, but the syntax certainly did matter on my Soyo/VIA
chipset motherboard.
As you suggest, try both.
Michael Westphal
DI options have been set on high compression on both my friends and my
computer.
I don't know the option check disk for errors.
Is this in DI 2002?
best wishes,
Michael
Bishoop
There are 3 options in DI2002 that will slow down the "average" transfer
speed or more correctly the total time to complete the image.
1. Check for the system errors
2. Verify disk writes
3. Verify image contents
You find these on the Options page where you set the compression level,
password, etc.
Not to say that these are bad options to have enabled, but if you're going
to compare results against other systems you have to take this into account.
Rod Speed
Bishoop <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:sRydnSjjNcz...@giganews.com...
> Michael Westphal <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote
>> DI options have been set on high compression
>> on both my friends and my computer.
>> I don't know the option check disk for errors.
>> Is this in DI 2002?
> There are 3 options in DI2002 that will slow down the "average" transfer
> speed or more correctly the total time to complete the image.
Thats your problem, he was clearly discussing the
transfer speed, not the total time to complete the image.
> 1. Check for the system errors
> 2. Verify disk writes
> 3. Verify image contents
None of those affect the transfer rate that
he sees is radically different on the two PCs.
> You find these on the Options page where
> you set the compression level, password, etc.
> Not to say that these are bad options to have enabled, but if you're going
> to compare results against other systems you have to take this into account.
Not with the transfer rate.
John
With Norton Ghost and an average PC (say 2.0Ghz or so), and modern drives,
you should be able to get about 2000MB/minute (2GB/min). You'll get slightly
less with NTFS, slightly more with FAT32.
Keep the hard drives on seperate IDE cables. Always use Ghost's
PartitonToPartition or DiskToDisk options in order to maximize speed.
(Partition To Image is slower).
Once you've had 2Gb/min, 580MB/min will seem terrible.
"Michael Westphal" <michael.w...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:3f6414e9$0$23082$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
> Hello folks,
>
> My Drive Image needs 1,5 hours to create an image on my 2nd harddrive. The
> transfer rate is only appr. 170 MB/minute.
>
> A friend of mine has a similar system and here Drive Image only needs 15
> minutes for the same work (Image-file is about 6 GB in seize).
> Here the transfer rate is about 580 MB/minute.
>
> Why is that?
>
> I have read in this group a thread form May this year and it seemed very
> interesting.
>
>
http://www.google.de/groups?q=Drive+Image+2002&hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&s
elm=47t8cvkjgj4tvk33259gt3qas284h8pclp%404ax.com&rnum=10
>
> It was about putting the parameter /ide=ON after the PQDI command.
>
>
> I have all done this like recommended, but the increase in speed was only
> from 170 to 215 MB/minute.
> And the total time is still 1,5 hours for 6 GB.
>
> In this thread it was spoken of appr. 1200 MB/minute.
>
>
> My System:
>
> Windows XP, NTFS two HDD 80 GB each. the 2nd HDD is only used for storing
> the image file.
>
> partitions (all on HDD one)
>
> c: (10 GB)
>
> d:(swap, is not included in making an image)
>
> e: (15 GB)
>
> f: (3 GB)
>
>
Michael Westphal
I habe appr. 210 MB/min.
And it seems terrible!
With best wishes!
Michael