The Corsair User Forums  

Go Back   The Corsair User Forums > Corsair Product Discussion > Solid State Drives (SSD)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 32 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-04-2010, 11:07 PM
JoeSchmuck's Avatar
JoeSchmuck JoeSchmuck is offline
Registered User
JoeSchmuck's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 112
POST ID # = 433739
JoeSchmuck Reputation: 10
Default

Randy,
You need to double check the backup you are restoring was accomplished with sector by sector unchecked. Whenever you do a wipe of the drive and then restore sector by sector, you are defeating the purpose of the wipe because all the data is written, including the empty places and creates an identical copy of the drive as it was during the backup. How about creating the backup by booting off your Acronis disk and selecting backup.

-Joe
__________________
Retired Rocket Scientist
Reply With Quote


  #17  
Old 01-05-2010, 01:40 AM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433748
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

Here is the setup i use, what am i doing wrong?

BTW I create the backup by running Acronis from Windows; should I create the backup from booting from the Acronis boot CD?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled.jpg (108.2 KB, 235 views)

Last edited by Randy Myers; 01-05-2010 at 01:43 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #18  
Old 01-05-2010, 09:48 AM
Dusan123456 Dusan123456 is offline
Registered User
Dusan123456's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oakville,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 26
POST ID # = 433770
Dusan123456 Reputation: 10
Default

Randy,
I noticed from your image you still have the 100Mb partition created by W7 during install.Why do you keep this? I don't know for sure but I suspect the sector by sector recovery is happening because Acronis can't just slap your image on the drive as it has to preserve that little partition.You can get rid of it with the disk utility available on the Acronis boot disk.
Reply With Quote


  #19  
Old 01-05-2010, 09:50 AM
Dusan123456 Dusan123456 is offline
Registered User
Dusan123456's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oakville,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 26
POST ID # = 433771
Dusan123456 Reputation: 10
Default

...and you should be making the image from W7....you can also start the recovery from W7,but it's better with the boot disk
Reply With Quote


  #20  
Old 01-05-2010, 11:39 AM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433787
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

I thought that W7 required that partition to be able to boot. I also was under the belief that the registration and licensing information was retained in that directory. Is this not true?
Reply With Quote


  #21  
Old 01-05-2010, 03:28 PM
Cadencia Cadencia is offline
Registered User
Cadencia's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Matakana, New Zealand
Posts: 83
POST ID # = 433817
Cadencia Reputation: 10
Default

That little partition is required to align the real partition on the appropriate boundary. You could remove it, but performance would suffer.

It doesn't make ant difference whether you create the backup from boot disk or win7.

I susect the problem is you have not ticked both partitions when doing your original backup. i am testing that premise now, but can't finish before having to leave for the day. I will have definitive answers later tonight, and will post, good or bad.
Reply With Quote


  #22  
Old 01-05-2010, 03:42 PM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433820
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

I really appreciate the help...
Reply With Quote


  #23  
Old 01-05-2010, 03:48 PM
Cadencia Cadencia is offline
Registered User
Cadencia's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Matakana, New Zealand
Posts: 83
POST ID # = 433822
Cadencia Reputation: 10
Default

30 seconds before I have to go out. I have reproduced your situation. Have never before done a disk wipe. I haven't got to the bottom of how to fix it yet, but I suspect you will have to re-create the partitions (using quick format) before doing the restore. I guess Acronis thinks it is quicker to do a sector by sector restore than a format and file by file restore, when targetting a blank disk as in this situation.

To do the format you would use diskpart, found on the win7 install disk.

I will verify this, and do step-by-step instructions tonight or tomorrow. There are instructions hanginig around the web, if you are impatient. Basically, run the win7 install disk, choose repair tools, command line. type diskpart - wait for the prompt, type help and work from there.

Later.
Reply With Quote


  #24  
Old 01-05-2010, 06:59 PM
Shandy Shandy is offline
Registered User
Shandy's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1
POST ID # = 433846
Shandy Reputation: 10
Default

„Sector by sector“ is probably new problem with Acronis 2010 and maybe W 7. I did not meet any such troubles with Acronis 11 - which I used very frequently, and XP. I thoroughly read Help of Acronis 2010 and did not find any solution. Conterary to Backup Help chapter which mentions „sector by sector“, Restore chapter does not mention it. You are absolutely right that unchecking „sector by sector“ during backup does not clear unclickable announcement during restore.
There can be two explanations: bug in A 2010 (but then all is possible) or a bit simple one - when you back up NOT „sector by sector“ then by restoring „sector by sector“ you can restore only backuped sectors, and thus only parts of disk which were written on!?!
With Acronis 11 I have tested restore with iso boot disk, my disk made by Acronis program and restore from hard disk and did not find any differences.
There is, of course, another way out - Acronis support. But by my experience even if Acronis progs are high end Acronis support is from time to time lazy middle...
As far as Acronis DriveCleanser - maybe you will find explanation in chapters of Help concerning choice of cleaning methods. 2010 offers several specified options, but this is too far field for me...
Reply With Quote


  #25  
Old 01-05-2010, 07:15 PM
Cadencia Cadencia is offline
Registered User
Cadencia's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Matakana, New Zealand
Posts: 83
POST ID # = 433848
Cadencia Reputation: 10
Default

I'm between appointments, so thought I would report progress. I have experienced the refusal by Acronis to do other than a sector by sector restore - even after creating partitions for it. However, I have also successfully done a 'normal' restore sing the SAME archive and disk drive, so I know it will be possible for you. It must be a trick of operating. I will go back over it all to _prove_ this, but at the moment my conjecture is that you can't SELECTIVELY restore from the backup, you have to restore the whole disk. I mean, from memory (I'm sitting in my car just now, so can't get at my notes), if you check the top 'disk' checkbox in the "what to restore" panel, it works as desired, but if you just check the partition you are concerned with, but not the top box, it does a sector restore.

However, the great news is that, when we can get past the operating problem reliably, it really does do what we want. Using the Acronis disk cleaner with a custom x'ff' pass does write all ones on the disk, and using the disk examination tool you can see that AFTER the restore of the backed-up data, the x'ff' sectors still remain at the end of the disk.

I don't know if that disk examination tool could be used to determine if a disk actually NEEDS wiping. I will have a look at the sectors on my X256 (which has been abused, but never 'wiped'), and my wife's P256, which has only had a firmware upgrade, win7 install, and very light usage since new a few days ago.

Playing with a 10GB old maxtor disk, the backup, wipe, restore sequence took a total of about 20 minutes elapsed. Of course that was punctuated by lots of false starts and retries.

Tonight I will try to pull all this together into a coherent set of instructions.

Last edited by Cadencia; 01-05-2010 at 07:20 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #26  
Old 01-05-2010, 08:30 PM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433864
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

Thank you so much. I think I understand most of what you wrote, except not quit following what optiosn I select during restore :)

In the disk cleaning, inserting FF in the custom field is what I should do, correct. I have had little luck with other "tools", however it is easier to experiment knowing that Acronis can brign the disk back with little effort.
Reply With Quote


  #27  
Old 01-05-2010, 09:55 PM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433883
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

Disk examing tool is very cool....

What it told me is that the from the first secot, 208,845 until somewhere about sector 30,000,000 has data on it. From there until sector 62,524,978 is full of FF and the last sector 62,524,979 has data on it.

The Diskpart seemed like it will work fine, however I have a couple questions. In the help format command it states that NCFS fs can't have allocation units above 4k; in the forums many times it is recommended to use 32kb allocation. How do you do this then? Also, the help states to use 4096 (I think it is) for 4kb, what number do you use for 32kb, if in fact it is the way to go.

Last edited by Randy Myers; 01-06-2010 at 03:39 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #28  
Old 01-06-2010, 05:06 AM
Cadencia Cadencia is offline
Registered User
Cadencia's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Matakana, New Zealand
Posts: 83
POST ID # = 433902
Cadencia Reputation: 10
Default

Back home, but late at night,so will resume testing tomorrow. However, as far as the allocation unit is concerned, I see that it is often recommended to use a non-standard (32K) allocation unit. This MAY improve sequential write speed, but probably at the expense of small random write speed. Don't know about that. Certainly with a small disk - and I regard 64G as a small disk - you would lose a lot of available space. I have written a small analysis tool to check out the implications (will make available here later) - and in my case, just changing from the standard 4K allocation unit to a 32K allocation unit would take away over 5GB ov free space in wasted over-allocation. It may be less wasteful on a non system disk, but I suspect not really a good idea unless you are using a stripe RAID and have space to burn.

From a sheer useability point of view, I reckon random read/write of 4K and less is the real benefit of SSD devices - makes even Vista quite responsive. The ATTO benchmark doesn't really test that, as far as I know. And all the makers claims seem to be based on sequential read/write speed. So, for me personally, I want my SSD to be optimised for random access, small blocks, and will accept the extra sequential speed as a bonus. So, large allocation units would be counter-productive. Actually not sure if you even CAN change the block size on the system disk.

The other point about performance is this: the benchmarks measure the raw SSD performance, not using ANY cache. How likely is that in the real world? Run the ATTO bench with the "direct I/O" box unticked to see what real world small file performance is like. Astonishing!
Reply With Quote


  #29  
Old 01-06-2010, 09:56 AM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433923
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

Ok, good.... i had read elsewhere that large allocations are really only useful if you are doing a lot of transferring and working with very large files. In OS and games the standard 4k is better for the reasons that you state. I thought that this might be your response so i feel a lot more confident leaving the disk in 4k allocation.

BTW- I ran the ATTO on both my x32 and my raptor, with and without direct I/O checked. The results are attached.

According to this test the raptor is out performing my x32. However the x32 "feels" faster. For example compared to my wife's computer, virtually identical other than she has only one raptor drive and none of the others that i have, mine boots windows several second faster than hers.

I am just wondering if the ATTO does not work correctly on my x32 in my system, or if my motherboard is preventing the Corsair from performing at it's best.... I wish I knew :(
Attached Images
File Type: jpg x32.jpg (435.1 KB, 204 views)
Reply With Quote


  #30  
Old 01-06-2010, 10:07 AM
Randy Myers Randy Myers is offline
Registered User
Randy Myers's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 145
POST ID # = 433926
Randy Myers Reputation: 10
Default

One further test I ran using Everest I found that in linear reads and random reads the x32 and the raptor were virtually identical, but in buffered reads the corsair shined.... see attached screenie....

So I guess at this point I have no idea what to make of all of this. Do you have any ideas, suggestions, etc.?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled.jpg (140.1 KB, 201 views)
Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.