Windows 7 Windows 7 Backup Takes Forever

[izaktaylor]

Howdy,

I'm backing up about 1.7 TB of data to a network drive, and its taking an extremely long time. I'm running Windows 7 64bit Ultimate. I'm fully up to date. I saw some random article about a hotfix for this issue and downloaded it but I guess I already had it installed as the installation wouldn't proceed, but instead said it wasn't for my computer. Any suggestions? Should I look towards another software backup program?

Thank you.

 

[whs]

I think the solution is an open enclusure that can do USB2 and USB3 - or alternatively several enclosures/. I prefer to image to the USB3 or eSata because it is faster. And restores are so infrequent that I do not mind swapping the enclosure.

 

[catilley1092]

That's what my main backup device is, an open enclosure, only they call it a docking station. It is primarily USB3, but USB 2 works also. It does a great job, and my hard drive remains cool.

That 500GB FreeAgentXtreme that I have, has USB 2, Firewire & eSATA ports. I have a BYTECC SuperSpeed USB3 to eSATA 3 Gps adapter that works well with it. This allows for computers with only USB3 ports to use their eSATA components. Here's the link to the product that I bought, and if you read the reviews, you'll see that I reviewed it myself. It's really handy, before I bought my USB3 docking station, it's what I was using, converting my USB3 port to eSATA. Little, if any difference in speed.

Link Removed

I don't really care for those retail packaged backup drives anymore. They're overpriced, and the drives tend to be the slower ones, and usually of cheap quality. But I'll say this for the FreeAgentXtreme, it's a good retail backup drive. It's a 500GB, 16MB cache & runs at 7200 rpm. If my desktop drive (the OEM 320GB WD Caviar Blue) were to fail, I'd probably crack the casing off that FreeAgent & place it in there. I have plenty of other backup space available to me.

That's why I bought 1TB, 32MB cache, 7200rpm bare drives when Newegg or Amazon ran them on sale for $49.99 to $59.99 each. My only regret was that I didn't buy 2 of those Samsung HD103SJ's from Amazon, rather than 1. I had the money, but as often as HDD's were on sale, I passed up. When I tracked the last one that I ordered, I noticed then that the price had doubled. I ordered it in the nick of time.

If nothing else, I could have sold that drive for enough to mostly pay for the SSD that's on my wish list. They are dropping in price, no way am I'm giving $159 for another of what I have (that's the going price now), when SSD's are becoming less costly by the GB than ever. But I don't want a last generation SSD, the more recent ones are faster. I like the looks of that M4.

Cat

 

[whs]

But I don't want a last generation SSD, the more recent ones are faster. I like the looks of that M4.

For the OS, you will not notice the difference. I have 6 SSDs - Gen1, Gen2 and Gen3 - I really do not notice the difference. Reason is because they all have a 0.1ms access time. And the data transfer rates play a very minor role for the OS performance because the OS does not R/W a lot of data - and that in 4K blocks.

 

[catilley1092]

For the OS, you will not notice the difference. I have 6 SSDs - Gen1, Gen2 and Gen3 - I really do not notice the difference. Reason is because they all have a 0.1ms access time. And the data transfer rates play a very minor role for the OS performance because the OS does not R/W a lot of data - and that in 4K blocks.

Glad to hear that. Does SATA 3 SSD's work with SATA 2 MB's? I was wondering because the answers vary. A few users who has SATA 2 MB's has reported faster speeds with SATA 3 SSD's, even with the bottleneck, but not true SATA 3 speeds, only faster than SATA 2.

This was the very reason that I passed up what was a good deal at Newegg before the HDD prices skyrocketed. A SATA 3 1TB Caviar Black for $64.99, I passed on because I feared that it wouldn't work, because my desktop uses SATA 2 HDD's. It was only the price that I was after, more than likely, I wouldn't be able to tell a difference in speed, even had it worked.

On the SSD's, this is something that I must make sure of when buying. If I have doubts, I'll order a SATA 2 SSD, it's still far faster than a SATA 2 mechanical drive running at 5400rpm.

Cat

 

[whs]

1. For SSDs you will be well served with a Sata2. Yes the Sata3 measure faster data transfer rates, but that means nothing for the OS. The OS speed comes from the fast access time and that is the same on Sata2 and Sata3. The OS has few R/W operations and those in 4K blocks.

2. For spinning disks, Sata3 is a marketing gimmick. A spinning disk can read or write data at a maximum speed of appr. 0.8Gb/sec - and it really does not matter whether the port can do 3Gb/sec (Sata2) or 6Gb/sec (Sata3). Both are waaay faster than any spinning disk.

PS: Any Sata3 disk attaches to a Sata2 port. You only need a Sata2 cable because the ports are different, not the disk attachments.