Imaging Performance Testing: MR8, ETBH, HBSP

[Mustang]

@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.  

[Mustang]

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.

[Froggie]

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.

[Mustang]

I did a test to a mechanical hard drive (6TB Toshiba X300 Pro):

Macrium Reflect X (Medium Compression)
Backup Time: 14 min. 39 sec.
Verify Time: 14 min. 28 sec.

Hasleo 5.6.1.1 Beta (Low Compression)
Backup Time: 17 min. 46 sec.
Verify Time: 15 min. 25 sec.

[garioch7]

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

[admin]

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.

Thank you, @Froggie, for pointing that out. Therefore, we can only conduct multiple tests and take the average to reduce errors, and try to use the same testing environment as much as possible. That is why we require using the same partition and formatting the partition before generating the image file.

[admin]

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

Dear Phil,

Honestly speaking, compared to V5.4, the backup performance of V5.5 has indeed regressed somewhat, and we are currently investigating the cause of this issue.

Regarding the performance differences caused by files being stored at different locations on the mechanical hard drive, this is something we recently discovered while working on improving the performance of image verification. It is indeed a real phenomenon.

Best regards,

[admin]

Dear All,

Here is the download link for the latest beta version:
https://www.easyuefi.com/backup-software...251229.exe

Please conduct your testing with this version.

For changes in this version, please refer to:
https://www.easyuefi.com/forums/thread-1...l#pid11498

Best regards,

[garioch7]

@admin,

Thank you for your reply.  I am gratified by your response.  I am doing real-world testing, with a hardware configuration that is not unusual.  HBSP should strive to work effectively and efficiently on a variety of mainstream hardware platforms.  My hardware configuration is listed in the header of all of my posts with the testing results.  I have never claimed, nor would I, that HBSP doesn't perform better on other hardware configurations; hence, my disappointment that it was felt by some, that my findings needed to be "explained."

I think it is very important that the Hasleo Team be aware that potential customers are making their decision as to whether to use/purchase Hasleo products, based, in some part, by what they read in the Hasleo Forums.  A "defensive" posture is not, I submit, what Hasleo should project ...

I have downloaded the latest beta version (5.6.1.1), but I will not be testing HBSP again until Friday, 2026-01-09.  Last week, I started my tri-weekly testing cycle protocol with MR8.  On 2026-01-02, I will test ETBH again.

I would prefer to test the latest beta version of HBSP, as of 2026-01-09, so please keep us all informed of beta releases.  I want to be scrupulously fair to HBSP, given that this relatively new program is evolving and developing at such a rapid pace.  HBSP is up against competitors that have been "in the game" for many years.  I am amazed HBSP has so quickly become a serious competitor to the older "giants" in the backup imaging world.

I strive to do impartial testing.  I am an HBSP customer with a lifetime license, including free upgrades, but I will not do "fan boy" testing.  I let the impartial results of my testing of these three products on my hardware configuration, speak for themselves, in the hope that they might be of benefit to Hasleo.  I also hold four lifetime licenses to MR8, and two lifetime licenses, with free upgrades, for ETBH; both purchased years ago.

Have a great day, and I wish all of the best in 2026 to the Hasleo Team.  You have come a very LONG way, already.

Regards,
Phil

[admin]

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and continued testing. Your professional and objective testing methods, as well as your support for Hasleo products, are immensely valuable to us. We fully understand your concerns regarding hardware compatibility and performance, and we highly value the test results you provided based on your actual configuration. This is crucial for us to optimize our products and ensure compatibility with a wide range of mainstream hardware platforms.

Regarding the impact of file storage location on read performance in mechanical hard drives, this is not a criticism of your test results. On the contrary, this test data has served as an important driver for us to continuously improve the image verification functionality, and we sincerely thank you for that. During our testing, we first ran MR to create an image, followed by HBS. In this scenario, no matter how much we optimized our code, HBS could not match the performance level of MR, which consumed a significant amount of our time. Later, we inadvertently deleted all images and first ran HBS to create an image, followed by MR. HBS’s performance improved significantly, and only then did we realize the issue inherent to mechanical hard drives.

Once again, we appreciate your impartial testing approach and your recognition and encouragement of HBSP. We wish you a Happy New Year and all the best! Our team will continue to strive for excellence.

Best regards,