Any ideas?

I recently re-installed my OS (W2K SP 4).  Reinstalled Ultrabac v6.37
running fine except .....

With new PC, I installed the Win 2000 OS with Intel's HT
(hyperthreading) enabled.  As you may know, this feature enables a
single physical processor to create a simulated logical processor to
run multiple tasks at the same time.  Intel's claim is it will lend
greater performance to Pentium 4 processors.

In reality - my main CAD application takes a 15% performance hit with
HT enabled.  'HT overhead'.

I went to PC BIOS, disable HT, rebooted.  Everything fine except UB
hangs during backup operations.  No errors, no log info, no Dr.
Watson.  Same with a Tape or local HD.

If I go back into PC BIOS, enable HT, reboot etc.  ..... UB works fine
again.

So, with HT enabled:
a) unistalled UB.
b) Re-Boot.  Deleted Ultrabac Directory
c) Combed thru registry with Regedt32 for ultrabac keys.  Deleted all
ultrabac keys.
d) Reboot
e) go to BIOS - dsable HT.  Reboot
f) Back in Win 2000, apply Win 2000 SP4 (in case 'multi processor'
kernal issue).
g) Reboot
h) As Admin - Reinstalled UB (HT disabled)  Install & Lic input went
fine

Tried doing a backup, UB stalls again!  No CPU Usage, no activity.  UB
just sits there at 99% thru (on D;| partition, F:\ untouched).  Same
UB stall if BU to local HD or SCSI Tape.

Any ideas?  Thanks - John

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Would you suggest I do a W2K "Repair Install" with HT Disabled in BIOS?

Current OS is W2K SP4.
Abit IC7 Latest BIOS
P4 3.2

jbcurran@pacbell.net (jbc) wrote in message news:<66682b1b.0406291229.20da5ce9@posting.googl
e.com>...
> Any ideas?
>
> I recently re-installed my OS (W2K SP 4).  Reinstalled Ultrabac v6.37
> running fine except .....
>
> With new PC, I installed the Win 2000 OS with Intel's HT
> (hyperthreading) enabled.  As you may know, this feature enables a
> single physical processor to create a simulated logical processor to
> run multiple tasks at the same time.  Intel's claim is it will lend
> greater performance to Pentium 4 processors.
>
> In reality - my main CAD application takes a 15% performance hit with
> HT enabled.  'HT overhead'.
>
> I went to PC BIOS, disable HT, rebooted.  Everything fine except UB
> hangs during backup operations.  No errors, no log info, no Dr.
> Watson.  Same with a Tape or local HD.
>
> If I go back into PC BIOS, enable HT, reboot etc.  ..... UB works fine
> again.
>
> So, with HT enabled:
> a) unistalled UB.
> b) Re-Boot.  Deleted Ultrabac Directory
> c) Combed thru registry with Regedt32 for ultrabac keys.  Deleted all
> ultrabac keys.
> d) Reboot
> e) go to BIOS - dsable HT.  Reboot
> f) Back in Win 2000, apply Win 2000 SP4 (in case 'multi processor'
> kernal issue).
> g) Reboot
> h) As Admin - Reinstalled UB (HT disabled)  Install & Lic input went
> fine
>
> Tried doing a backup, UB stalls again!  No CPU Usage, no activity.  UB
> just sits there at 99% thru (on D;| partition, F:\ untouched).  Same
> UB stall if BU to local HD or SCSI Tape.
>
> Any ideas?  Thanks - John

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Would you suggest I do a W2K "Repair Install" with HT Disabled in BIOS?

Current OS is W2K SP4.
Abit IC7 Latest BIOS
P4 3.2

jbcurran@pacbell.net (jbc) wrote in message news:<66682b1b.0406291229.20da5ce9@posting.googl
e.com>...
> Any ideas?
>
> I recently re-installed my OS (W2K SP 4).  Reinstalled Ultrabac v6.37
> running fine except .....
>
> With new PC, I installed the Win 2000 OS with Intel's HT
> (hyperthreading) enabled.  As you may know, this feature enables a
> single physical processor to create a simulated logical processor to
> run multiple tasks at the same time.  Intel's claim is it will lend
> greater performance to Pentium 4 processors.
>
> In reality - my main CAD application takes a 15% performance hit with
> HT enabled.  'HT overhead'.
>
> I went to PC BIOS, disable HT, rebooted.  Everything fine except UB
> hangs during backup operations.  No errors, no log info, no Dr.
> Watson.  Same with a Tape or local HD.
>
> If I go back into PC BIOS, enable HT, reboot etc.  ..... UB works fine
> again.
>
> So, with HT enabled:
> a) unistalled UB.
> b) Re-Boot.  Deleted Ultrabac Directory
> c) Combed thru registry with Regedt32 for ultrabac keys.  Deleted all
> ultrabac keys.
> d) Reboot
> e) go to BIOS - dsable HT.  Reboot
> f) Back in Win 2000, apply Win 2000 SP4 (in case 'multi processor'
> kernal issue).
> g) Reboot
> h) As Admin - Reinstalled UB (HT disabled)  Install & Lic input went
> fine
>
> Tried doing a backup, UB stalls again!  No CPU Usage, no activity.  UB
> just sits there at 99% thru (on D;| partition, F:\ untouched).  Same
> UB stall if BU to local HD or SCSI Tape.
>
> Any ideas?  Thanks - John

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Saga continues:
a) Uninstalled UB
b) Reboot
c) Comb registry - delete all ultrabac keys
d) Reboot.
e) Interuppt startup > BIOS > set to disable HT > save & reboot
e) Once back in w2k, thru device manager installed uniprocessor kernal
(replaces multi HAL)
f) Reboot.  Delete UB Program Folder
g) Once back in w2k, checked HAL (Uniproc)
h) Logged out & back on as Admin
i) Reinstalled UB.  Install, lic  & scheduler worked fine (no errors)
j) Reboot
k) Attempt to run an modified files BU.  Stall @ 100 of c:\ (or it
will get thru c:\ and stall @ 99% of d:\).

I am at a loss.  I'll upgrade if that will resolve hangs as I have
spent several fruitless hours.

jbcurran@pacbell.net (jbc) wrote in message news:<66682b1b.0406291229.20da5ce9@posting.googl
e.com>...
> Any ideas?
>
> I recently re-installed my OS (W2K SP 4).  Reinstalled Ultrabac v6.37
> running fine except .....
>
> With new PC, I installed the Win 2000 OS with Intel's HT
> (hyperthreading) enabled.  As you may know, this feature enables a
> single physical processor to create a simulated logical processor to
> run multiple tasks at the same time.  Intel's claim is it will lend
> greater performance to Pentium 4 processors.
>
> In reality - my main CAD application takes a 15% performance hit with
> HT enabled.  'HT overhead'.
>
> I went to PC BIOS, disable HT, rebooted.  Everything fine except UB
> hangs during backup operations.  No errors, no log info, no Dr.
> Watson.  Same with a Tape or local HD.
>
> If I go back into PC BIOS, enable HT, reboot etc.  ..... UB works fine
> again.
>
> So, with HT enabled:
> a) unistalled UB.
> b) Re-Boot.  Deleted Ultrabac Directory
> c) Combed thru registry with Regedt32 for ultrabac keys.  Deleted all
> ultrabac keys.
> d) Reboot
> e) go to BIOS - dsable HT.  Reboot
> f) Back in Win 2000, apply Win 2000 SP4 (in case 'multi processor'
> kernal issue).
> g) Reboot
> h) As Admin - Reinstalled UB (HT disabled)  Install & Lic input went
> fine
>
> Tried doing a backup, UB stalls again!  No CPU Usage, no activity.  UB
> just sits there at 99% thru (on D;| partition, F:\ untouched).  Same
> UB stall if BU to local HD or SCSI Tape.
>
> Any ideas?  Thanks - John

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Your problem may have nothing to do with hyperthreading.  Perhaps Ultrabac
is incompatible with some other piece of software on your computer.

I suggest that you install Windows 2000, along with the latest service
pack.  Maybe run Windows Update too.  Install any device driver you need
to do backup (for tape drive perhaps?).  Then install Ultrabac.  Install
nothing else.  See if Ultrabac runs successfully.

That's a lot of work, but you have the option of installing a second
copy of Windows 2000 on your PC as per above.  That way, you can simply
delete this copy of Windows 2000 when your experiment is complete,
without disturbing your previous installation of Windows 2000.

One other thought.  Ultrabac is up to version 7.1.4.  You can probably
obtain a trial copy of this software at no cost.  See if it works any
better for you.

Anyway, if the above experiments fail, then you probably have a hardware
problem.

Good luck!
--
David Arnstein
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

David - thanks for your suggestions.

For the record, UB v6.37 worked great while HT enabled.  UB only
failed to complete backup process IF I disabled Hyperthreading (HT) in
PC BIOS.  Re-enabling HT restored UB to fine working order.

I then unistalled UB 6.37 and rebooted.  Installed trial version of UB
v7.1.4.  Same issue.  Worked fine with HT enabled.  Not work with HT
disabled.

Installed a second W2K OS (SP4) with HT disabled in BIOS.  Installed
UB v6.37.  Worked like a champ.

Cannot get UB to function properly on primary W2K system with HT
disabled.
Maybe a registry setting?

My UB maintenance expired, and I could not swallow $125 / tech support
call to Ultrabac.  I was willing to upgrade at full price if UB v7.1.4
worked (but did not in my case).

End result, purchased & installed NovaSTOR Novabackup Professional
v7.1  Very nice.  Installed Adaptec's ASPI layer (even though using
LSI u160).

Very happy with new program.  Easy interface.  Differential backups
with software compression are 2X faster than with UB v6.37.  As with
Ultrabac - NovaStor provided great tech support.  And only $50 vs
substantially more for Ultrabac.

arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote in message news:<cbv0i1$obg$1@reader2.panix.com>..
.
> Your problem may have nothing to do with hyperthreading.  Perhaps Ultrabac
> is incompatible with some other piece of software on your computer.
>
> I suggest that you install Windows 2000, along with the latest service
> pack.  Maybe run Windows Update too.  Install any device driver you need
> to do backup (for tape drive perhaps?).  Then install Ultrabac.  Install
> nothing else.  See if Ultrabac runs successfully.
>
> That's a lot of work, but you have the option of installing a second
> copy of Windows 2000 on your PC as per above.  That way, you can simply
> delete this copy of Windows 2000 when your experiment is complete,
> without disturbing your previous installation of Windows 2000.
>
> One other thought.  Ultrabac is up to version 7.1.4.  You can probably
> obtain a trial copy of this software at no cost.  See if it works any
> better for you.
>
> Anyway, if the above experiments fail, then you probably have a hardware
> problem.
>
> Good luck!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <66682b1b.0407052312.1238cf64@posting.google.com>,
jbc <jbcurran@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Installed a second W2K OS (SP4) with HT disabled in BIOS.  Installed
>UB v6.37.  Worked like a champ.
>
>Cannot get UB to function properly on primary W2K system with HT
>disabled.
>Maybe a registry setting?

Windows 2000 requires different HAL drivers, depending upon whether you
use hyperthreading or not.  You can choose your HAL driver in the "device
manager" application.  There's an item under "Computer " that allows
you to change the HAL driver, as I recall.  If you search for documentation
on the different HAL drivers, you won't see hyperthreading mentioned.
Instead, you'll see mention of multiprocessor PCs.

Since you are switching back and forth between hyperthreading and not
hyperthreading, I suggest that you pick the proper HAL driver for your
environment.  Otherwise, you might see subtle misbehavior in other
software, not just Ultrabac.
--
David Arnstein
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

David - Thanks for thought regarding HAL. I had made the HAL change. Very st
range.

... from my message 4 earlier in thread.

Saga continues:
a) Uninstalled UB
b) Reboot
c) Comb registry - delete all ultrabac keys
d) Reboot.
e) Interuppt startup > BIOS > set to disable HT > save & reboot
e) Once back in w2k, thru device manager installed uniprocessor kernal
(replaces multi HAL)
f) Reboot.  Delete UB Program Folder
g) Once back in w2k, checked HAL (Uniproc)
h) Logged out & back on as Admin
i) Reinstalled UB.  Install, lic  & scheduler worked fine (no errors)
j) Reboot
k) Attempt to run an modified files BU.  Stall @ 100 of c:\ (or it
will get thru c:\ and stall @ 99% of d:\).

I am at a loss.  I'll upgrade if that will resolve hangs as I have
spent several fruitless hours.

arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote in message news:<cceph5$qgi$1@reader2.panix.com>..
.
> In article <66682b1b.0407052312.1238cf64@posting.google.com>,
> jbc <jbcurran@pacbell.net> wrote: 
>
> Windows 2000 requires different HAL drivers, depending upon whether you
> use hyperthreading or not.  You can choose your HAL driver in the "device
> manager" application.  There's an item under "Computer " that allows
> you to change the HAL driver, as I recall.  If you search for documentatio
n
> on the different HAL drivers, you won't see hyperthreading mentioned.
> Instead, you'll see mention of multiprocessor PCs.
>
> Since you are switching back and forth between hyperthreading and not
> hyperthreading, I suggest that you pick the proper HAL driver for your
> environment.  Otherwise, you might see subtle misbehavior in other
> software, not just Ultrabac.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Have you tried Retrospect?

--Randy Starkey

"jbc" <jbcurran@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:66682b1b.0407061658.357c7278@posting.google.com...
> David - Thanks for thought regarding HAL. I had made the HAL change. Very
strange.
>
> ... from my message 4 earlier in thread.
>
> Saga continues:
> a) Uninstalled UB
> b) Reboot
> c) Comb registry - delete all ultrabac keys
> d) Reboot.
> e) Interuppt startup > BIOS > set to disable HT > save & reboot
> e) Once back in w2k, thru device manager installed uniprocessor kernal
> (replaces multi HAL)
> f) Reboot.  Delete UB Program Folder
> g) Once back in w2k, checked HAL (Uniproc)
> h) Logged out & back on as Admin
> i) Reinstalled UB.  Install, lic  & scheduler worked fine (no errors)
> j) Reboot
> k) Attempt to run an modified files BU.  Stall @ 100 of c:\ (or it
> will get thru c:\ and stall @ 99% of d:\).
>
> I am at a loss.  I'll upgrade if that will resolve hangs as I have
> spent several fruitless hours.
>
> arnstein@panix.com (David Arnstein) wrote in message
news:<cceph5$qgi$1@reader2.panix.com>...[vbcol=seagreen] 
"device[vbcol=seagreen] 
documentation[vbcol=seagreen] 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Randy - tried retrospect some time ago. Pretty happy with NovaStor solution.
  John

"Randy Starkey" <randy.starkeyNOSPAM@NOSPAMvictorychurch.com> wrote in message news:<10euj4s
o6pk697b@corp.supernews.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Have you tried Retrospect?
>
> --Randy Starkey
>
> "jbc" <jbcurran@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:66682b1b.0407061658.357c7278@posting.google.com... 
>  strange. 
>  news:<cceph5$qgi$1@reader2.panix.com>... 
>  "device 
>  documentation 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]