|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > August 2005 > Backup speed: Ghost 9 versus Ghost 2003
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Backup speed: Ghost 9 versus Ghost 2003
|
|
| DVDUsr 2005-08-16, 5:53 pm |
| I would appreciate any speed comparisons you can provide here.
Here's mine:
Harddisk: WD 300GB SATA
Partition 1 (C 240GB NTFS; 29.8GB used
Partition 2 (F 40GB FAT32
Ghost 9.0 under Win XP SP2, high compression, virus-scanner disabled
backup C: to F:\C_Drive*.v2i
backup time: 01:12:51
backup size: 22.6GB
Ghost 2003 using DOS (WIN98 Startup Disk), high compression
backup partition 1 to image on F: (*.GHO and *.GHS)
backup time: 00:57:46
backup size: 22.8GB
Is Ghost 2003 generally faster than Ghost 9.0 ?
| |
| DVDUsr 2005-08-19, 5:48 pm |
|
DVDUsr wrote in message news:4301f924$0$47203$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> I would appreciate any speed comparisons you can provide here.
> Here's mine:
>
> Harddisk: WD 300GB SATA
> Partition 1 (C 240GB NTFS; 29.8GB used
> Partition 2 (F 40GB FAT32
>
> Ghost 9.0 under Win XP SP2, high compression, virus-scanner disabled
> backup C: to F:\C_Drive*.v2i
> backup time: 01:12:51
> backup size: 22.6GB
>
> Ghost 2003 using DOS (WIN98 Startup Disk), high compression
> backup partition 1 to image on F: (*.GHO and *.GHS)
> backup time: 00:57:46
> backup size: 22.8GB
>
>
> Is Ghost 2003 generally faster than Ghost 9.0 ?
Now, with NO compression...
PC used was a 3.0GHz Pentium-4, 1GB RAM
Disk-space in-use on C: 29.9GB
Ghost 9.0 under Win XP SP2, NO compression, virus-scanner disabled
backup C: to F:\C_Drive*.v2i
backup time: 00:40:30
backup size: 28.4GB
Ghost 2003 under DOS (from WIN98 Startup floppy disk), NO compression
backup partition 1 to image on F: (*.GHO and *.GHS)
backup time: 00:27:49
backup size: 28.4GB
|
|
|
|
|