2 hours ago
@admin,
This result you discovered is what happens in a real-world environment. My Target internal 4 GB WD HDD always has six complete disk images on it: two each from MR8, ETBH, and HBSP. A prudent backup strategy includes having more than one system image. Each Friday, when I use one of three programs to image my Disk 2 (OS SSD), I delete the oldest backup of that set of two, and manually initiate a new system image, at which point I am down to only five (5) previous disk partition images.
I submit that seldom is a prudent user only going to have only one backup image on a target drive. If a user does so, s/he is placing all of their trust and data integrity on one backup image, which could be corrupt, or become corrupted. That, to put it simply, is just plain stupid.
I submit that Hasleo should cease relying on "perfect" Lab testing scenarios (a completely virgin Target backup drive) to assess the performance of HBSP in comparison to the other two products I am testing. Both MR8 and ETBH contend with the same issue on my Target image drive: it is never "virgin."
I thank you for your kind words, and for appreciating that I am only conveying the results of the testing of MR8, ETBH, and HBSP on my hardware configuration. I am pleased to be able to contribute concretely to the evolution of HBSP as a first-class imaging solution.
"Explaining" my results does not EXPLAIN how MR8 is, so far, able to image and verify faster than HBSP. That being said, I think that HBSP, a relative newcomer to software imaging program product line, has no reason to justify their continually improving performance. The HBS explanations that are being offered are issues with which all imaging programs must contend.
I have NO doubt that HBSP will continue to evolve and improve. I am happy to be able to contribute my limited testing results to inform the Hasleo Backup Team of how their program works on my computer configuration. As some say in English, I "have no skin in the game." I own licenses for all three products.
I do have a bias however, which I freely admit, to see HBSP overthrow MR as the best imaging solution at some date in the future.
Happy New Year to the Hasleo Software Team, and to you, @admin.
Regards,
Phil
Quote: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.
This result you discovered is what happens in a real-world environment. My Target internal 4 GB WD HDD always has six complete disk images on it: two each from MR8, ETBH, and HBSP. A prudent backup strategy includes having more than one system image. Each Friday, when I use one of three programs to image my Disk 2 (OS SSD), I delete the oldest backup of that set of two, and manually initiate a new system image, at which point I am down to only five (5) previous disk partition images.
I submit that seldom is a prudent user only going to have only one backup image on a target drive. If a user does so, s/he is placing all of their trust and data integrity on one backup image, which could be corrupt, or become corrupted. That, to put it simply, is just plain stupid.
I submit that Hasleo should cease relying on "perfect" Lab testing scenarios (a completely virgin Target backup drive) to assess the performance of HBSP in comparison to the other two products I am testing. Both MR8 and ETBH contend with the same issue on my Target image drive: it is never "virgin."
I thank you for your kind words, and for appreciating that I am only conveying the results of the testing of MR8, ETBH, and HBSP on my hardware configuration. I am pleased to be able to contribute concretely to the evolution of HBSP as a first-class imaging solution.
"Explaining" my results does not EXPLAIN how MR8 is, so far, able to image and verify faster than HBSP. That being said, I think that HBSP, a relative newcomer to software imaging program product line, has no reason to justify their continually improving performance. The HBS explanations that are being offered are issues with which all imaging programs must contend.
I have NO doubt that HBSP will continue to evolve and improve. I am happy to be able to contribute my limited testing results to inform the Hasleo Backup Team of how their program works on my computer configuration. As some say in English, I "have no skin in the game." I own licenses for all three products.
Just a moment...I do have a bias however, which I freely admit, to see HBSP overthrow MR as the best imaging solution at some date in the future.
Happy New Year to the Hasleo Software Team, and to you, @admin.
Regards,
Phil