Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Paragon HD Mgr. 17: too slow to be useful?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    8

    Unhappy Paragon HD Mgr. 17: too slow to be useful?

    I have an MS Surface Pro (i7) whose built-in SSD is about 90% full (910GB used, 110 still free) and I have attached a Seagate Plus (2TB) via USB 3.

    I just started a full backup but after a while the backup SW told me, that the backup will take 12+ hours. ||-(

    Using Acronis True Image a full backup always took ~6 hrs which is just fast enough to reliably run a full backup over night. But 12+ hrs. for a full backup is simply too long. I need my laptop daily for work (i.e. I have to take it with me) and can't afford to wait just until a backup is finished.
    Are there any dials (like compression rate or such) that allow to tweak the performance so that backups run considerably(!) faster? Otherwise, Paragon's HD manager v17 is useless for me simply due to speed (or rather: slowness) reasons.

  2. #2

    Re: Paragon HD Mgr. 17: too slow to be useful?

    My backup from an SSD to a 7200 RPM USB 3.0 removable disk is writing to the destination disk at the rate of 22 mbyte/sec (and is only 10-15% active). I would expect sequential writes to a moderately high speed disk would run at 300-500 mbytes/sec. Is this normal for this software?

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    8

    Re: Paragon HD Mgr. 17: too slow to be useful?

    BTW: the 12+ hrs were displayed using "Normal" compression. I then tried "Fast" which threatened to take "22+" hrs (!) and finally I tried with "None" which announced 3+ hrs. So, without any compression it would be doable, but... ||-(

  4. #4

    Re: Paragon HD Mgr. 17: too slow to be useful?

    It's been my experience that the estimated time displayed by Paragon backup has never been reliable and seems to reflect only the transfer rate of the data that's currently being copied. Some data seems to copy much faster than others (I'm sure some expert can explain why) and the estimated time seems to be based on a scenario where everything will continue be that slow, which it never usually is. I've seen such HUGE differences between what's estimated and what time it really takes that I've learned to just ignore that estimate and am sometimes amused by how wrong it is. You might have been surprised to see 12 or 22 hours change to 6 and then to 2 hours in a very short time had you just let it run to see how long it would really take. Just an idea ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •