Quote from: Lazybones on March 29, 2015, 02:25:47 PM
At first I tried to use Clonezilla, but then it donned on me that Since windows 7 you have been able to do a FULL image based OS backup with the machine Running none the less and restore using the native backup tool.
(http://charliegower.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/23/more.jpg)
[ x ]
So are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup_and_Restore#Removal or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8#File_History ? (what if you don't want ongoing backup, but periodically wish to do a "snapshot" image type of thing? Then Clonezilla ftw?)
Samsung SSDs come with a tool that lets you do an Online OS transfer to the new drive. It is quite impressive actually to see it work.
Switching XP to 7 (64bit) as my main art computer was an eyebrow raising experience. I didn't realize how POOR performance on XP was actually having an effect on what I could do artistically (NO MORE BANDING)... anyway I also discovered that I could ... actually run additional apps along side a hog like Photoshop without any issues... like none
No more mp3 stuttering, no more stream lag, heck I could even have a browser open with more than 4 tabs open (including the Picarto chat window)
Now I work with Windows 8 and the GUI is still a @%&#ed up mess but at least apps that run in parallel don't clobber each other anymore, in fact stuff like Outlook and Visual Studio actually seem to be quite content to run next to each other without bombing the @%&# out of each other. I can run a compile during a Lync meeting and still hear people.
TBH the only thing I miss about Win XP is the UI and the driver support for old, questionable hardware. It had it's day for almost 10 years.
Now if only MS could take the power of 8.1 and wrap it in a UI that isn't a total mess.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 31, 2015, 07:30:20 AM
Switching XP to 7 (64bit) as my main art computer was an eyebrow raising experience. I didn't realize how POOR performance on XP was actually having an effect on what I could do artistically (NO MORE BANDING)... anyway I also discovered that I could ... actually run additional apps along side a hog like Photoshop without any issues... like none
The only thing I find slower in Windows 8.1 vs 7/XP is file transfer... Anyone have suggestion how to NOT have Windows do its painfully slow default way of analyzing and displaying the pending files to be copied/moved?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 01, 2015, 08:45:52 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 31, 2015, 07:30:20 AM
Switching XP to 7 (64bit) as my main art computer was an eyebrow raising experience. I didn't realize how POOR performance on XP was actually having an effect on what I could do artistically (NO MORE BANDING)... anyway I also discovered that I could ... actually run additional apps along side a hog like Photoshop without any issues... like none
The only thing I find slower in Windows 8.1 vs 7/XP is file transfer... Anyone have suggestion how to NOT have Windows do its painfully slow default way of analyzing and displaying the pending files to be copied/moved?
xcopy? or some third party tool.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 01, 2015, 08:45:52 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on March 31, 2015, 07:30:20 AM
Switching XP to 7 (64bit) as my main art computer was an eyebrow raising experience. I didn't realize how POOR performance on XP was actually having an effect on what I could do artistically (NO MORE BANDING)... anyway I also discovered that I could ... actually run additional apps along side a hog like Photoshop without any issues... like none
The only thing I find slower in Windows 8.1 vs 7/XP is file transfer... Anyone have suggestion how to NOT have Windows do its painfully slow default way of analyzing and displaying the pending files to be copied/moved?
Using just about any cli or 3rd party tool like Teracopy. However if this takes a seriously long time you are likely transferring many many small files from an extremely slow source or data link.
Quote from: Tom on April 01, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
xcopy? or some third party tool.
I was mainly wondering if there is a way of telling Windows to NOT do its default way of pre-analyzing or whatever it does that makes it take noticeably longer -- even if copying just a single file. Still want a graphical interface, this is just the regular copying/moving of files from one place to another that I often need to do... In many ways the new filecopy is smarter and better than previous Windows versions for sure (the way it lets you say what to do for all future conflicts etc.) but it definitely seems to have a ton of extra overhead due to whatever it does up front to achieve the extra smarts.
I'm not describing it very well.
Bottom line: Any Windows config/setting I can disable temporarily when I know I just want to do a mass file copy/move and do not need it to do the slower-but-smarter analysis stuff?
We know exactly what you meant and wanted. AFAIK there is no "disable this file scan" option. If there is, its an obscure registry entry.
How much data are we talking here?
Anecdotally, I find file transfer speeds in 8.x are highly variable depending on disk activity but also comparable to Win 7 (and both OSs clocked faster than XP on my setups)
Could it be something else slowing you down, like AV software?
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 01, 2015, 08:45:52 AM
The only thing I find slower in Windows 8.1 vs 7/XP is file transfer... Anyone have suggestion how to NOT have Windows do its painfully slow default way of analyzing and displaying the pending files to be copied/moved?
Quote from: Lazybones on April 01, 2015, 09:19:17 AM
Using just about any cli or 3rd party tool like Teracopy. However if this takes a seriously long time you are likely transferring many many small files from an extremely slow source or data link.
If you think the file transfer takes too long, do as Lazy suggests and install TeraCopy: http://codesector.com/teracopy. It's faster. I have it running on my Win8.1 machines, I had it on my Win7 and on my WinXP machines. It's faster. You can tell it through the settings menu to be your default copy program even for drag & drop, and I have set that now after experimenting with it on Win8.1. It's faster.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on April 01, 2015, 10:19:03 AM
How much data are we talking here?
Anecdotally, I find file transfer speeds in 8.x are highly variable depending on disk activity but also comparable to Win 7 (and both OSs clocked faster than XP on my setups)
Could it be something else slowing you down, like AV software?
I think I'm realizing it's both Windows 7 as well as 8/8.1 that the "extra stuff" has existed in the file transfer dialog etc... but I might be mis-remembering.
This is the MS Windows popup and delay that I'm talking about, there's nothing visible showing Avira doing anything (since I'm talking about folder-to-folder on same system, usually).
I guess I'm just opening a discussion because I realize that one of the big reasons I do not presently have an external (USB?) hard drive to truly "back up" most of my laptop's data is because I dread how freakin' long a time it would be to do the initial data dump... and if I break it into smaller tasks over a few days it's just more work to keep track of where I left off etc. [and create a process for myself that is not so cumbersome that I avoid doing it again for months at a time again!]
Still should do it, I know, but I guess I just want to do it most efficiently when I finally get that task to the top of my todo list...
Sorry for the hijack, folks.
And btw thanks for this info -- http://codesector.com/teracopy -- HOLY CRAP!
"One of the most common complaints about newer versions of Windows is the slow copying speed, especially when transferring lots of files over the network. ...TeraCopy integrates with Windows Explorer's right-click menu and can be set as the default copy handler."
Why would anyone NOT use the free version of this as their default file copy tool? (and the paid version = $25 CDN so not exactly budget-breaking)
Oh yeah NETWORK transfer on newer versions of Windows is complete ASS
As for differential backups to a drive array if you are on USB 3.0 it's not so bad, unless you are generating several gigs of content on each diff?
Speaking of which I need to buy another disk array. Outta space again.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on April 01, 2015, 03:08:54 PM
Oh yeah NETWORK transfer on newer versions of Windows is complete ASS
DING DING!
Yeah, it's especially that kind of extra overhead that is extremely noticeable, compared to XP (and 7? or not? can't remember...)
Within the same drive letter is not so bad. And who partitions their HD nowadays, amirite?
...I think my lappy has USB3 (got it in May of last year IIRC) but I have not really shopped around at MemEx to see what an external HD goes for nowadays. I'd also check FutureSchlock, but...
I forgo large network transfers now with a HDD dock
It's bad enough between same version Windows but if you have a mix on your network GOOD FREAKING LUCK
IF they can talk to each other the transfer is SLOW AS HELL
Hm, I have noticed network transfers on windows could be a tad slow... Maybe I'm just spoiled with my lunix. I can nearly peg out GbE with transfers over NFS. to properly peg GbE, I can pull shenanigans with "nc" (netcat), but thats usually too much like work. scp often gets pretty close too.
Windows is mostly broken up into two stacks. The switch happened with vista / 2008 server.
File transfers between those generations can have issues if not tweaked.
I use TeraCopy because it can resume stopped transfers, has a nice double-bar UI (top bar shows current file progress, bottom bar shows overal progress), uses two distinct transfer techniques based on whether it's copying on the same physical drive or to a different physical drive, and shaved at least 15% off transfer times in WinXP (haven't done the actual math in Win7 or Win8.1). Oh, and it can handle multiple copies from multiple locations to multiple locations by running one at a time, or if you like you can start multiple transfers. And you can pause them if you need a specific transfer to complete sooner.
I'm sure Tom sees faster transfer speeds than I do, but the only time I'm transferring on my network is to/from the Drobo, and it seems to not be able to handle faster than about 33MB/s incoming. Maybe one of these days I'll try transferring from a Win8.1-on-SSD to another Win8.1-on-SSD via gigabit ethernet to see how fast I can really get it to go.
Speed, however, is not actually at the forefront of my concern when copying. Pausing and restarting transfers, getting details of what files failed to copy, having multiple transfers running at the same time and not thrashing the drive, that's more important to me.
Have you checked your Drobo specs, 33MB/264mbps sounds about right for a lower end home NAS.
That's about what I'd expect for a drobo, especially the older ones. They are really just small embedded arm or risc boxes with little ram, and a custom wrapper over jbod. Very handy little boxes, but not there for "speed". You (sadly) have to pay for that (through the nose).
Write speed is slow for sure, read speed is pretty decent
I have a first generation drobo, I've been copying files since 1 AM using xcopy
4 GB down 3 to go
Quote from: Lazybones on April 01, 2015, 04:31:01 PM
Windows is mostly broken
Starting a post with those words should bring in some interesting traffic ;)
Quote from: Darren Dirt on April 02, 2015, 10:43:46 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on April 01, 2015, 04:31:01 PM
Windows is mostly broken
Starting a post with those words should bring in some interesting traffic ;)
Sexy windows is erotically broken
FTFY
Quote from: Lazybones on April 02, 2015, 08:49:11 AM
Have you checked your Drobo specs, 33MB/264mbps sounds about right for a lower end home NAS.
Not sure if you're telling me I should be getting faster transfers, or if you're telling me I should be happy with this speed.
My Drobo is a Drobo FS, which has never been known for its speed. The best explanation I've read is that it has a dual-core processor and one of the cores is exclusively used for shuffling files around and running BeyondRAID, so that leaves only one core to handle any front-end UI stuff as well as all data transfers. And it's an ARM processor, so it's already a step behind speed-wise.
I could move up to a Drobo 5N, which has a better processor (more than two cores) and the ability to use a small SSD to speed things up and an OS optimized for the better hardware, but reports on how fast it is fluctuate quite a bit. Some people say 50MB/s, some say 70MB/s, some have posted screenshots of 90+MB/s. Keep in mind that it's attached to a 1GbE network, so theoretical maximum is 125MB/s.
I know that I can buy a high-end NAS for about a grand and get a couple of 10GbE ports on it, along with more space for drives and better processors. That's overkill for what I use my NAS for, though, and also for what I see myself using my NAS for in the future.
All that said, I like my Drobo because of the ease of use. I had a drive problem (not enough space), one of the kids noticed the orange light and asked me about it, I bought another drive and pushed it in. The slower speed does not bother me enough to spend $500 to $1,000 replacing it.
Quote from: Thorin on April 02, 2015, 11:02:32 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on April 02, 2015, 08:49:11 AM
Have you checked your Drobo specs, 33MB/264mbps sounds about right for a lower end home NAS.
Not sure if you're telling me I should be getting faster transfers, or if you're telling me I should be happy with this speed.
My Drobo is a Drobo FS, which has never been known for its speed. The best explanation I've read is that it has a dual-core processor and one of the cores is exclusively used for shuffling files around and running BeyondRAID, so that leaves only one core to handle any front-end UI stuff as well as all data transfers. And it's an ARM processor, so it's already a step behind speed-wise.
I could move up to a Drobo 5N, which has a better processor (more than two cores) and the ability to use a small SSD to speed things up and an OS optimized for the better hardware, but reports on how fast it is fluctuate quite a bit. Some people say 50MB/s, some say 70MB/s, some have posted screenshots of 90+MB/s. Keep in mind that it's attached to a 1GbE network, so theoretical maximum is 125MB/s.
I know that I can buy a high-end NAS for about a grand and get a couple of 10GbE ports on it, along with more space for drives and better processors. That's overkill for what I use my NAS for, though, and also for what I see myself using my NAS for in the future.
All that said, I like my Drobo because of the ease of use. I had a drive problem (not enough space), one of the kids noticed the orange light and asked me about it, I bought another drive and pushed it in. The slower speed does not bother me enough to spend $500 to $1,000 replacing it.
A home NAS will not drive 10GbE at all not to mention the related equipment is crazy expensive.
Having a system that can fully utilize 1Gig is a worth while goal and not all that hard... However remember that file transfer performance is also dependent on the destination device... I field complaints at work sometimes about transfer speeds to crappy desktop units. File transfers are only as good as both ends, and RAID has over head.
I could not find any info on the Dropbo FS real performance, there might actually be different models.
I get up to 84MB/s from my custom server (linux) over 1Gig Ethernet to my desktop (win 8.1) that has an SSD.
I manage to get 110MB/s off my nas via NFS. Pretty much comes close to saturating my GbE Lan. When I had bonding set up, I think I saw 150MB/s or more (sadly bonding actually kinda sucks, I was hoping for like 180% not 140% boost). The actual raid array is capable of 400-500MB/s local read speeds, it used to be a bit faster, but my replacement WD Red drives are slower than the older Seagates by 20MB/s or so. It's worth the trade off. The local read speeds are useful when the raid array is multi-use. I can stream video via nfs, plex, have a backup going, and torrents, and not notice any of it. Back in the day, I'd notice when a backup was going on because streaming video would hiccup on occasion.
I installed a distro called OpenMediaVault this time instead of a bare debian install like I usually do. It made setting up crucial things like mdmon, hddtemp, smartmon, and other bits a lot simpler.
My Setup is also OpenMediaVault but I have fewer and slower drives in my array...
Yeah, not too long ago I was still using a desktop with only 100MbE. Now I'm on a desktop with 1GbE and an SSD transferring to an old Drobo FS. The FS really is quite slow, tonight I saw 28MB/s-31MB/s copying to it, which is right in line with what I've read other people reporting for their speed. But it's an old device. Like I said, I could get much better speeds if I buy a new Drobo 5N, but I'm not interested in spending the money. I could also buy new hardware and set up an OpenMediaVault like you guys have, but again, that's money. Also, can you hot-swap any size drives there without having to open a box or anything?
I get that faster speeds are better, but I don't actually notice the slow speeds except when copying large files to the Drobo. I stream through Plex, with Plex reading from the Drobo, and I can stream multiple files while also copying files to the Drobo. It's slow, but it doesn't stutter or anything.
Quote from: Thorin on April 03, 2015, 03:23:43 AM
Yeah, not too long ago I was still using a desktop with only 100MbE. Now I'm on a desktop with 1GbE and an SSD transferring to an old Drobo FS. The FS really is quite slow, tonight I saw 28MB/s-31MB/s copying to it, which is right in line with what I've read other people reporting for their speed. But it's an old device. Like I said, I could get much better speeds if I buy a new Drobo 5N, but I'm not interested in spending the money. I could also buy new hardware and set up an OpenMediaVault like you guys have, but again, that's money. Also, can you hot-swap any size drives there without having to open a box or anything?
My little pc-q25b case has hotswap for 5 drives, just have to pop off the side cover that is held in place with some pressure fit pins. Two of the drives are not hot swap :( But it's full, and if there's an error I'm most likely not going to hotswap anyhow. I just don't trust it. lol.
Quote from: Thorin on April 03, 2015, 03:23:43 AM
I get that faster speeds are better, but I don't actually notice the slow speeds except when copying large files to the Drobo. I stream through Plex, with Plex reading from the Drobo, and I can stream multiple files while also copying files to the Drobo. It's slow, but it doesn't stutter or anything.
Yeah, its up to what you need. If its enough, its fine :) I did what I did to solve a problem i was having :)
I am fine with my speed as well... You don't need to go faster unless there is a reason..
I am currently looking at solutions for work that can transfer over 1GB/s. Fun scaling problems start to happen when your databases are in measured in TB.
Quote from: Lazybones on April 03, 2015, 03:50:10 PM
I am fine with my speed as well... You don't need to go faster unless there is a reason..
I am currently looking at solutions for work that can transfer over 1GB/s. Fun scaling problems start to happen when your databases are in measured in TB.
Intel released a few new nvme ssds :o one is a server grade beast that can do 2.8GB/s read, and a lower end enthusiast device that can do 2.4GB/s. Some pretty cool things coming out. Both have 1TB versions. Pretty snazzy. I imagine they'd make killer upper layer or cache devices.
Quote from: Tom on April 03, 2015, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on April 03, 2015, 03:50:10 PM
I am fine with my speed as well... You don't need to go faster unless there is a reason..
I am currently looking at solutions for work that can transfer over 1GB/s. Fun scaling problems start to happen when your databases are in measured in TB.
Intel released a few new nvme ssds :o one is a server grade beast that can do 2.8GB/s read, and a lower end enthusiast device that can do 2.4GB/s. Some pretty cool things coming out. Both have 1TB versions. Pretty snazzy. I imagine they'd make killer upper layer or cache devices.
I will post some benchmarks if I have some time on paper some of the equipment I will be testing in the next month... It is in that range or higher.
Quote from: Lazybones on April 03, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: Tom on April 03, 2015, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on April 03, 2015, 03:50:10 PM
I am fine with my speed as well... You don't need to go faster unless there is a reason..
I am currently looking at solutions for work that can transfer over 1GB/s. Fun scaling problems start to happen when your databases are in measured in TB.
Intel released a few new nvme ssds :o one is a server grade beast that can do 2.8GB/s read, and a lower end enthusiast device that can do 2.4GB/s. Some pretty cool things coming out. Both have 1TB versions. Pretty snazzy. I imagine they'd make killer upper layer or cache devices.
I will post some benchmarks if I have some time on paper some of the equipment I will be testing in the next month... It is in that range or higher.
Oh yeah. Some of the enterprise equipment is pretty impressive. Though the price/speed of those two new intel ssds are impressive for a single TB sized device. I'm sure you can pull much more than that with some shenanigans and fancy hardware setups.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on March 30, 2015, 09:03:46 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on March 29, 2015, 02:25:47 PM
At first I tried to use Clonezilla, but then it donned on me that Since windows 7 you have been able to do a FULL image based OS backup with the machine Running none the less and restore using the native backup tool.
(http://charliegower.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/23/more.jpg)
[ x ]
So are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backup_and_Restore#Removal or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8#File_History ? (what if you don't want ongoing backup, but periodically wish to do a "snapshot" image type of thing? Then Clonezilla ftw?)
The above post should be a start of a separate thread, imo, since it almost immediately tangent-icized into a discussion of "File Copying And Backup Solutions Discussion" <-- my vote for the title of the new thread branch :)
Done.