M.2 speed on backup (Maccrium or Easeus todo)

Topic

New Reply

[krism]

specs in sig.

My backup to a Sammy ssd runs at about 3-400MB/s. That’s expected through external C3.1 .

Since I had 300GB free on my M.2 I wondered if I told it to back up to there, would it be faster – nope. Created NTFS on M.2. told it to backup the 5 windows partitions to the 6th ntfs but it still goes at 3-400MB. All are M.2 . Why? Crystal tests that M.2 at 3300MB/s Thanks!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

• This topic was modified 8 months, 2 weeks ago by krism.

Reply | Quote

Replies

Software overhead?

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

nope.

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

If I understand your post correctly you’re trying to backup your C: to K: and they are both on the same NVMe M.2 SSD?

If that’s the case you’re using the controller on a single device to do both reading and writing which will obviously slow down the write speed.

If this is not the case be a little more specific about each drive, where it is located, and the interface it is using.

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

1 user thanked author for this post.

krism

Reply | Quote

That is the case. Not interested in discussing the foolishness of backing up to the same physical device but wondered what speed I would get. Since the M.2 and the laptop have 4 pipes(2 pairs), max would be ~3300MB/s, so I was hoping for something like 1500MB/s

I just ordered one of these https://www.newegg.com/wavlink-wl-ute02-enclosure/p/0VN-0069-00025?Description=thunderbolt%20m.2&cm_re=thunderbolt_m.2-_-9SIA6PFA3D8575-_-Product&quicklink=true

That would be plugged to the C-looking Thunderbolt port on my P15s. Thinking that would actually be a good and fast route for doing it. But for the moment, just playing with what I’ve got. Did not expect to be limited to USB C speeds!!!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

I use Acronis for backup.
A full image backup (4 partitions) of my PC to external 4TB NVMe SSD creating a 90GB image file takes ~10 minutes.

Reply | Quote

That’s 150MBps – far slower than your nvme!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

Use a different utility to calculate the speed.
Robocopy is built-in and it has a nice summary on completion. You need to remember to add the /NDL /NFL options otherwise the screen display will be the limiting factor.

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

utility? simple calculator: 90GB divided by 10 min = 150MBs.

 

robocopy won’t copy partitions!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

krism wrote:

That’s 150MBps – far slower than your nvme!

I am more than content with +1Gb/s speed as the USB-C 4TB NVMe replaced a USB 3.0 HDD with write speed of ~30MB/s.

Image/incremental backups are done at night.

Reply | Quote

You could easily get 10Gbps (1GBs)(1000MBs) with a USB 3.1 C port(with appropriate cable and nvme enclosure). But your backup will still not exceed 200 MBs. At 1000MBs your backup would be done in 2 min. But they only go at 200MBs. even without compression.

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

The port on the laptop is USB-C / USB 3.1 and the Sandisk 4TB Nvme support (up to) write 1000MB/s .

Writing the image is the last part of reading drive c: 256GB + drive d: 1TB HDD…

Reply | Quote

but your backup only goes at 150MBs

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

I am ok with that.

Maybe the low speed is due to Windows 10 labeled the Nvme as SCSI drive.

Reply | Quote

That’s nice.

But this thread was about wondering WHY there is a factor of 1/10. even without compression.

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

First, there is compression.
Second, maybe because the drive is labeled as SCSI.

Reply | Quote

did you read my post? “even without compression.”

could you please let someone else answer?

Thanks so much!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

krism wrote:

I wondered if I told it to back up to there, would it be faster – nope. Created NTFS on M.2. told it to backup the 5 windows partitions to the 6th ntfs but it still goes at 3-400MB. All are M.2 . Why? Crystal tests that M.2 at 3300MB/s

“… if I told it to back up to there …”  What is “it”?  Are you using imaging software, drag & drop, or what?  I’m not at all sure of what you’re doing.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We were all once "Average Users". We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems, we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

Computer Specs

1 user thanked author for this post.

krism

Reply | Quote

“it” was Macrium reflect or EASEUS todo workstation backup

 

thanks – I started this test by trying to back up to my primary nvme which runs at 3.3GB/s. I was baffled by its(the backup program’s resultant throughput) slow speed but thought it might be a “controller” limitation.

So I looked into getting a fast outboard nvme which I easily found with the SSK enclosure and a standard C to C cable rated 10Gbps. It tests and runs at 1GBps (big B). (win10 pro 22H2 or Mint 21.1 Cinn) So I ran various different win backup apps (incl shadow and aomei)and found them all still limited to 200MBps, EVEN without compression. So one could say “overhead” but having worked with computers since I was 18 (IBM 7070), that is unlikely even for the sloppiest of programmers and assuming all these different programs use the same core code. so WHY a factor of 5? or, why the limit to 200MBps regardless of bandwidth of target given source is 3.3GBps.

Thanks!

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

krism wrote:

I started this test by trying to back up to my primary nvme which runs at 3.3GB/s. I was baffled by its(the backup program’s resultant throughput) slow speed but thought it might be a “controller” limitation.

Using imaging software, you do indeed have software overhead, even without compression.  The imaging software must read/write via memory buffers and then pass the writes on to the drive interface.  Some software has minimalist overhead, but all software has some overhead; memory addresses read from and written to via CPU cache memory.

My OS partition is on this drive:

I write my drive images to this internal drive:

I ran my routine drive image of my OS partition (47.1GB/48,230MB) to my internal drive using Image For Windows.  The image creation took 1:41 (477.5 MBs average).  Verifying the image made total elapsed time 3:08, which is a read speed (plus overhead; the image is compressed to 35,145MB) of 403.9 MBs.

The SATA SSD I’m writing to is the slow link in the chain.

I then ran the identical image with my OS partition as the target (it has enough room).  The image creation took 4:11 (192.2 MBs).  Image verification made total elapsed time 6:41, which is a read speed of 234.3 MBs.

Read/Write via a single drive controller is the slow link in the chain.

To sum up, @RetiredGeek is correct in his assessment; “you’re using the controller on a single device to do both reading and writing which will obviously slow down the write speed.”

As an aside, this is the very bottleneck I experienced in XP that led me down the path of separating major OS folders onto different HDD’s (and now SSD’s).  It dramatically (meaning you can see it) improves speed and efficiency of the system overall.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We were all once "Average Users". We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems, we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

Computer Specs

1 user thanked author for this post.

krism

Reply | Quote

Thanks for your time.

No question that there is some overhead in any backup program.

However, given that my laptop nvme clocks at about 3.3GBps, given same controller if write image to same nvme, I might have expected a speed of 1.6GB, or maybe 1.4GB, or maybe 1.2GB – Not even close.

When I am writing to the outboard nvme, the laptop chipset controller is doing (mostly) only reads( at 3.3GBps), and the controller on the SSK is doing (again, mostly) only writes (at 1.0GBps) – none of which explains my perceived limit of around 200MBps. Your secondary tested at ~500, yet you only got 192 on writes. That is one hell of a lot of overhead. Or, something else is going on.

Back on windows, I downloaded trial of terabytes image for windows and had it back up the 7 partitions to a new partition on the same nvme – 87GB, 4min 17 sec – 337MBps .

To the external nvme (1GBps) 87GB 5min 19sec – 272MBps.

i7-10510U, 16GB ram

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

krism wrote:

Your secondary tested at ~500, yet you only got 192 on writes.

You misread my post.  My secondary SSD, internal SATA, tested at 559/526 Read/Write.

bbearren wrote:

The image creation took 1:41 (477.5 MBs average). Verifying the image made total elapsed time 3:08, which is a read speed (plus overhead; the image is compressed to 35,145MB) of 403.9 MBs.

bbearren wrote:

I then ran the identical image with my OS partition as the target (it has enough room). The image creation took 4:11 (192.2 MBs).

In other words, exactly what you said you were doing in the OP.  Reading from and writing to the same NVMe.  It clearly takes longer; performance is degraded by ~52% on my PC.

krism wrote:

I downloaded trial of terabytes image for windows and had it back up the 7 partitions to a new partition on the same nvme – 87GB, 4min 17 sec – 337MBps .

And there is a very simple explanation—reads and writes are going through the same device controller, not through two different device controllers.  It can’t both read and write at the same time—it can only do one or the other.  I replicated what you were doing in the OP and compared that to my usual imaging (read from one device, write to another device).  It seems that you misread my reply.

krism wrote:

To the external nvme (1GBps) 87GB 5min 19sec – 272MBps.

Going to an external is always going to be slower—interfaces and cables.

As for the 3.3GBs, don’t expect to see that in actual performance running Windows.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We were all once "Average Users". We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems, we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

Computer Specs

1 user thanked author for this post.

krism

Reply | Quote

yes, yes, yes…  many misunderstandings.

part simply my fault in mis-understanding “speeds”. for example, Samsung rated this 970 evo plus or some such as 3500 or something like that so I was happy with my (4-pipe) laptop and crystalmark gave me 3.3GB and 3.1GB(r,w). Other speed testers gleefully give roughly the same. Didn’t realize that there was one in Easeus Partition Mgr – same. However, I have carried along a very old one from XP days – HD Tach. It gives 1600 for the Samsung 970 and only 300MB for the outboard WD on the SSK enclosure (the one that crystal says is 1000MB). hmmmmm

raw test…: So I copied my MS folder (2 isos) from the external (1GBps) to C: (3.3GBps) and timed it and got about 800MB/s – that would probably be a functional max read time for the outboard nvme. Copied it back out and got roughly 600MBps – that would be max write time for the outboard nvme. (folder was 9.93GB or 10.667Gb in size – took about 16-17 secs)(5-10% accuracy)(really rough!)

So, if I start with 600MBps instead of 1000MBps, 200 seems a lot more reasonable, given overhead. The terabyte program is indeed noticeably faster (I WAS looking for a faster backup program!) but for $60 I think I will pass for now – I also don’t know if it would successfully restore a linux ext4 partition even though it seems to know what it is and backs them up, so testing would be needed.

This might be further encouragement to see if I can get Thunderbolt working on this laptop… (40Gb/s)(expensive)

Maybe close this?

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

ATTO Disk Benchmark (free) will clearly show that small files yield much slower transfer rates.

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

@bbearen THANKS – I bought terabyte image suite and bootit suite. image is twice as fast as easeus and 3 times as fast as Macrium.

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote

marked resolved

- Thinkpad P15s Gen1 20T4-002KUS, i7-10510U, UEFI/GPT, 16GB, Sammy 500GB M.2.
others...
- Win 11 22H2(current, 1 mo behind)(WuMgr). HP laserjets M254dw & P1606dn, Epson 2480 scanner. External monitor Dell s3221QS for old games.

Reply | Quote