(12-27-2025, 06:39 PM)admin Wrote:

(12-27-2025, 07:15 AM)Mustang Wrote: @xeroid

Thanks for the Beta link.

More test results:

Hasleo 5.6.1.0 Beta
Backup Time: 1 min. 12 sec.
Verify Time: 1 min. 21 sec.
Image Size: 161.8 GB (Medium Compression)

Acronis True Image 2026 Premium Build 42386
Backup Time: 2 min. 53 sec.
Verify Time: 1 min. 0 sec,
Image Size: 129.0 GB (Normal Compression)

EaseUS To Do Backup Pro 16.2
Backup Time: 4 min. 40 sec.
Verify Time: 9 min. 48 sec.
Image Size: 180.9 GB (Medium Compression)

AOMEI Backupper Pro 8.0.0
Backup Time: 5 min. 56 sec.
Verify Time: 11 min. 50 sec.
Image Size: 179.4 GB (Medium Compression)

Have you tested the low compression level of HBS? How much time did the low compression level take?

I'm quite curious about how Acronis True Image can generate such a small image file.

New tests:

Hasleo 5.6.1.1 Beta
Backup Time: 1 min. 13 sec.
Verify Time: 1 min. 17 sec.
Image Size: 161.8 GB (Medium Compression)

Hasleo 5.6.1.1 Beta
Backup Time: 1 min. 10 sec.
Verify Time: 1 min. 16 sec.
Image Size: 163.9 GB

A number of years ago Acronis switched from .tib format to .tibx format. Image size using the older .tib format would have been very comparable to Hasleo's image size. The new .tibx format was a complete rework and is more space efficient. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how they accomplish it as they are very closed about disclosing anything.  

(12-27-2025, 08:24 PM)admin Wrote: Understanding and Mitigating Performance Variations Across Mechanical Hard Drive Tracks for Fair Benchmarking

We have recently observed a significant difference in access speeds for files stored at different locations on the same mechanical hard drive. The reason is likely that the hard drive platters rotate at a fixed speed, while the outer tracks have a longer physical circumference. Therefore, during the same time it takes for the platter to complete one rotation, the read/write head can read more data on the outer tracks. As a result, files stored on the outer tracks of the hard drive exhibit noticeably higher sequential read/write speeds compared to those stored on the inner tracks.

This difference is particularly evident when continuously accessing large files, such as during integrity checks of large disk image files. To ensure fairness in performance comparisons (whether for backup or integrity verification), we recommend using a dedicated partition to store the backup image to be tested. Additionally, ensure that during testing, the partition contains only the image file generated by the software being evaluated (the partition can be formatted before generating the backup image). This approach helps ensure that the image file being tested is located as close as possible to the beginning of the partition.

I completely agree with this explanation. I can see backup speed slow down on a mechanical hard drive toward the end. As you know my tests were done on a RAID 0 array with 2 NVMe SSD's. I can tell you that a Macrium Reflect X backup to a mechanical hard drive takes about 15 minutes vs. 1 minute to my RASID 0 array. I haven't tested Hasleo to a mechanical hard drive recently, but past test showed very similar times between Hasleo and Macrium Reflect 7. I found that Macrium Reflect X is actually a little slower than Macrium Reflect 7 when going to a mechanical Hard drive.

(12-28-2025, 01:46 AM)Froggie Wrote: Another factor that's never mentioned when benchmarking HDDs is the engineering model of the HDDs themselves.  With the introduction of SMR vs CMR type HDDs, WRITE speeds have taken on a different life of their own with SMR HDDs adding significant WRITE time when accessing certain sections of the drives themselves.

Adding complication to the issue is that many manufacturers never identified HDDs as far as SMR vs CMR types with little or no information available about different model drives... some still not available today.

Personally, I don't know how proper comparisons can ever be made without this type of information.

(12-28-2025, 07:19 AM)garioch7 Wrote: With respect, there are many factors that influence write/read speeds.  I am only sharing my own results, with my own hardware.  HBSP should compare itself with real-world computers.

I compare the other two products with the exact same hardware configuration, as my comparison posts make clear.

I am actually disappointed that Hasleo, and a very senior Forum member, would seek to "explain" my testing results ...  It indicates a defensiveness that I was not expecting.

My testing is an objective, impartial analysis of how HBSP compares to the other two products I use, and have used longer than HBSP, when used on my hardware configuration.

May I respectfully suggest that instead of looking for explanations for my results, Hasleo concentrate its efforts on trying to improve the performance of HBSP on similar hardware configurations.

Respectfully submitted,
Phil