cloning (not imaging) speed -- Macrium vs DD

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

  1. Posts : 11,247
    Windows / Linux : Arch Linux
       #1

    cloning (not imaging) speed -- Macrium vs DD


    Hi folks
    I'm talking about Cloning here not imaging which is a separate methodology and Macrium does perfectly with it (both performance and reliability wise).

    However on Cloning Macrium performs rather worse on Windows than using DD on most Linux systems fairly significantly though

    Testing on the same hardware with the same source and target disks the macrium performs roughly at 800 Mb/s or 200 MB/s whereas the DD method using parameters DD if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=64M status=progress runs at 320 MB/s which is over 1 Gb/s so a lot faster.

    On both tests I was running the application from within the Native OS's --i.e not using a stand alone recovery type system.

    Not sure why there should be this difference in performance since the functionality can't be that different -- both methods read a block of raw data - the file system type is totally irrelevantant - and write it to the target drive so no "OS" file system or I/O handling routines would presumably be needed -- just a BIOS call to the Disk controller. I think the answer might lie in the way you can "Buffer" the DD method by specifying the block size for the data transfer with the bs parameter.

    Perhaps anyone from Macrium could explain a bit and see if there's an easy method of improving the data transfer via the Cloning method.

    Imaging is usually faster since only actual data is copied - not empty blocks in files etc -- for cloning though you want an identical target disk to the source.

    Cheers
    jimbo
    Last edited by jimbo45; 26 Aug 2019 at 02:44. Reason: a few typos
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 17,661
    Windows 10 Pro
       #2

    Have you tried Full Flash Update (FFU) imaging? For me, it is clearly faster to clone a disk with FFU than using Macrium.

    DISM - Clone and Deploy using FFU Image

    Kari
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 2,585
    Win 11
       #3

    The ONLY software I've had consistent (good) clones with is Macrium. Others either were iffy or were never successful and that includes Acronis.
      My Computers


  4. Posts : 15,426
    Windows10
       #4

    Kari said:
    Have you tried Full Flash Update (FFU) imaging? For me, it is clearly faster to clone a disk with FFU than using Macrium.

    DISM - Clone and Deploy using FFU Image

    Kari
    I second this - this is amazingly fast. Nothing else comes close.

    To be fair, FFU is not exactly a cloning exercise, more of a backup and restore as you still need to create an intermediate backup file but nonetheless it is FAST.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 17,661
    Windows 10 Pro
       #5

    cereberus said:
    I second this - this is amazingly fast. Nothing else comes close.

    To be fair, FFU is not exactly a cloning exercise, more of a backup and restore as you still need to create an intermediate backup file but nonetheless it is FAST.
    I've never had to create an additional backup? I capture an FFU image, sector by sector clone, and deploy it to new disk, and that's it.

    Kari
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 15,426
    Windows10
       #6

    Kari said:
    I've never had to create an additional backup? I capture an FFU image, sector by sector clone, and deploy it to new disk, and that's it.

    Kari
    Semantics.

    A clone directly copies a disk to another one without any intermediate step involved.

    That is not how FFU works as far as I can tell. You still create an image file which you deploy to a new drive.

    FFU is sort of halfway between imaging and cloning as the the image is more a sector by sector copy.

    However, in the end it still needs two steps to clone to new drive, and this is more like Macrium backup and restore.

    Unless I am mistaken, I cannot see a way to capture data on one drive and SIMULTANEOUSLY deploy it to a new drive which is exactly what Macrium Reflect does when cloning.

    In the end, it does not matter except you have to be careful about comparing oranges and apples as you need to take all steps into account when comparing speeds.

    As an aside, Reflect's Rapid Delta Cloning (not free version) is awesomely fast if you have an existing clone, and you re-clone provided extent of changes do not involve a build upgrade.
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 17,661
    Windows 10 Pro
       #7

    cereberus said:
    Semantics.
    My apologies, I now understand what you meant.

    Kari
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 525
    Windows 10
       #8

    Imaging always involves compression. The method used affects both the "speed" and the size of the image. Compression is not used in cloning.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 15,426
    Windows10
       #9

    Anibor said:
    Imaging always involves compression. The method used affects both the "speed" and the size of the image. Compression is not used in cloning.
    Actually no. You can make an image backup with Macrium Reflect with NO compression.

    In fact, iirc, FFU can also be done with no compression but there is always a trade off between compression time and disk space.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 15,426
    Windows10
       #10

    Kari said:
    My apologies, I now understand what you meant.

    Kari
    No need to apologise. It would be great if FFU supported direct cloning though wouldn't it?
      My Computer


 

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 10 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 10" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48.
Find Us




Windows 10 Forums