Ghost 8.0 worse than Ghost 7.5 (or Ghost 2003 vs Ghost 2002)

[J.W.]

FYI...

I've been testing Ghost 8.0 Corporate Edition. It looks like the
programmers broke some features that used to work in version 7.5. The
following information also probably applies to Ghost 2003 (consumer
version) vs Ghost 2002.

+++ Positives:
+++++ adds support for Linux GRUB partitions
+++++ does not lock up on systems with both IDE & SATA (no -FNI
command line switch needed)

---- Minuses (things that used to work in v7.5 are broken in v8.0) :
----- Writing multiple spanned images (>3gb) to network drives "disk
full" errors (v7.5 didn't have this problem)
----- slow performance when writing image to network drive
(-buffersize option doesn't help)
----- stamps .GHS files with "SYSTEM" and "READ-ONLY" file attribute
making them invisible in DOS sessions unless using "DOS /as" or
"attrib -s *"

So far, it looks like Ghost 8.0 took 2 steps forward but 3 steps
backwards.

 

[Knack]

FYI...

I've been testing Ghost 8.0 Corporate Edition. It looks like the
programmers broke some features that used to work in version 7.5. The
following information also probably applies to Ghost 2003 (consumer
version) vs Ghost 2002.

+++ Positives:
+++++ adds support for Linux GRUB partitions
+++++ does not lock up on systems with both IDE & SATA (no -FNI
command line switch needed)

---- Minuses (things that used to work in v7.5 are broken in v8.0) :
----- Writing multiple spanned images (>3gb) to network drives "disk
full" errors (v7.5 didn't have this problem)
----- slow performance when writing image to network drive
(-buffersize option doesn't help)
----- stamps .GHS files with "SYSTEM" and "READ-ONLY" file attribute
making them invisible in DOS sessions unless using "DOS /as" or
"attrib -s *"

So far, it looks like Ghost 8.0 took 2 steps forward but 3 steps
backwards.

I don't think Ghost 2002 supported USB 2.0, whereas Ghost 2003 does. This is
important for backing up or restoring from USB 2.0 external drives; a major
improvement.

 

[Joe Morris]

---- Minuses (things that used to work in v7.5 are broken in v8.0) :
----- Writing multiple spanned images (>3gb) to network drives "disk
full" errors (v7.5 didn't have this problem)

----- slow performance when writing image to network drive
(-buffersize option doesn't help)

Neither seen here, although we don't do that much with writing to
network drives. One of my people is tasked to do a formal sanity
check of G8 for use in our testbed lab so this may come up later.

Are you sure that you're using the same drivers and configuration --
and going to the same server? There are some server configuration
parameters that if not tweaked cause significant performance hits
when used with MSNET clients uploading files.

----- stamps .GHS files with "SYSTEM" and "READ-ONLY" file attribute
making them invisible in DOS sessions unless using "DOS /as" or
"attrib -s *"

Minor nit: I think you mean DIR, not DOS.

And FWIW I'm not seeing any attribute bits set in files generated
by G8.

Joe Morris

 

[John Face]

Neither seen here, although we don't do that much with writing to
network drives. One of my people is tasked to do a formal sanity
check of G8 for use in our testbed lab so this may come up later.

Are you sure that you're using the same drivers and configuration --
and going to the same server? There are some server configuration
parameters that if not tweaked cause significant performance hits
when 9used with MSNET clients uploading files.


Minor nit: I think you mean DIR, not DOS.

And FWIW I'm not seeing any attribute bits set in files generated
by G8.

Joe Morris

For information
Ghost supplied with SystemWorks Pro 2004 doesn't work on either of my
computers.
Sony VAIO PCG-C1VM (sold in Australia) running xp pro conected via
firewire
to a Sony PCGA-CRWD1 aborts with error messages including 50401/52101
(use different media brand/disc not blank).
IBM 2251 running xp pro with 4 partitions (DOS,xp,xp,BootMagic)
returns advice 'Unable to find free MBR slot in the Vitual Partition
DLL. This is usually due to there being no free primary partition
slots left on the boot disk.' (I do not understand enough to know what
this means.}

Please only reply if you have a fix.

John Face

 

[vern]

forget ghost,
after 2 days of troubleshooting ghost errors (trying to copy win2k boot ntfs
partition) found and downloaded a trial version of R-Drive Image @
http://www.r-tt.com/
It copied the the entire partion in less than 30min (10gigs data) worked
perfectly from windows. Re-booted to the new drive with no problems at all,
very impressed.

Vern

 

[Paul Atreides]

[cut][cut]

Hi All,

What performance could we expect from a network transfer under DOS ?

The maximun we have on Ethernet 100 is about 3 or 4 MB/s (we backup at
10 MB/s under Windows 2000 with Drive SnapShot). I have tried with DOS
UDMA driver but it doesn't increase speed. Same with Bart Network Boot
Disc.

Is there a way to use 100% of the fast ethernet bandwidth under DOS ?

TIA.

 

[Piers James]

you may have already done this, but have you run liveupdate??? AFAIK, there
has been at least 2 updates for the consumer version of 2003.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

forget ghost,
after 2 days of troubleshooting ghost errors (trying to copy win2k boot ntfs
partition) found and downloaded a trial version of R-Drive Image @
http://www.r-tt.com/
It copied the the entire partion in less than 30min (10gigs data) worked
perfectly from windows. Re-booted to the new drive with no problems at all,
very impressed.

Were you making a bootable image?

Which Windows OS were you using?

*TimDaniels*

 

[vern]

Were you making a bootable image?

Which Windows OS were you using?

*TimDaniels*

win2k
used disk to disk copy
copied bootable partition to new disk
swapped jumpers then booted to new disk with no problems

Vern

 

[Rod Speed]

For information
Ghost supplied with SystemWorks Pro 2004 doesn't work on either of my
computers.
Sony VAIO PCG-C1VM (sold in Australia) running xp pro conected via
firewire
to a Sony PCGA-CRWD1 aborts with error messages including 50401/52101
(use different media brand/disc not blank).
IBM 2251 running xp pro with 4 partitions (DOS,xp,xp,BootMagic)
returns advice 'Unable to find free MBR slot in the Vitual Partition
DLL. This is usually due to there being no free primary partition
slots left on the boot disk.' (I do not understand enough to know what
this means.}

Basically Ghost needs a free primary partition slow in the
MBR to setup the virtual partition it uses to do the work.

That particular system has them all in use, so there isnt a free one.

You can either reconfigure it so it does have a free partition slot,
basically by removing one of (DOS,xp,xp,BootMagic) or you can use
the rescue floppy if it has a floppy drive, or boot the CD if it hasnt.

If the distribution isnt bootable with access to ghost, and I dont think
it is with SystemWorks Pro, you can just do a ghost run on any PC
which has a burner on it, and that CD will be a bootable ghost CD.

If you must keep all of the DOS,xp,xp partitions, you can use
a different boot manager that doesnt need its own partition like
OSL2000 so there is a free slot in the partition table for ghost.

 

[Rod Speed]

What performance could we expect from a network transfer under DOS ?

Its usable unless you want to image quite a large system over the net.

The maximun we have on Ethernet 100 is about 3 or 4 MB/s

Ghost can manage quite a bit better than that. Best to use maximum
compression unless the system ghost is running on is a real old dinosaur.

(we backup at 10 MB/s under Windows 2000 with Drive SnapShot).

Thats hopeless.

I have tried with DOS UDMA driver but it doesn't increase speed.

Yeah, the problem is the lan, not the drive access.

Same with Bart Network Boot Disc.

Is there a way to use 100% of the fast ethernet bandwidth under DOS ?

Nope, you'll never get anything like 100%. The data flow is significantly
bursty with significant pauses as ghost assembles the next chunk of
data to pump over the lan. Very visible on the lan leds.

Exactly what thruput you get depends mostly on the horsepower
of the system that you are running ghost on because you normally
want to use maximum compression to minimise the volume moving
over the lan and that takes more than minimal horsepower on the
PC that ghost is running on, to minimise the pauses in lan traffic.

 

[Paul Atreides]

Its usable unless you want to image quite a large system over the net.

Yes, we now use Drive Snapshot (wich is more convenient than GHOST as it
doesn't require a reboot) to backup machines with up to 4 GB daily. But
we expected to be able to save a 230 GB server before rebuilding its
RAID array and it was not reasonable.

Ghost can manage quite a bit better than that. Best to use maximum
compression unless the system ghost is running on is a real old dinosaur.


Thats hopeless.

I'd call that perfect instead (on 100 Mbps Ethernet, it's almost 100% of
the available bandwidth)

Yeah, the problem is the lan, not the drive access.

Here you say the problem is the LAN (it could be the DOS NIC driver or
how DOS handles Network I/O, doing a request then waiting for
completion).

Nope, you'll never get anything like 100%. The data flow is significantly
bursty with significant pauses as ghost assembles the next chunk of
data to pump over the lan. Very visible on the lan leds.

And here you say the problem is in the machine running DOS + GHOST
(because DOS and / or GHOST arent't multi-tasked ?)

Don't you realize you're contracdicting yourself ?

Exactly what thruput you get depends mostly on the horsepower
of the system that you are running ghost on because you normally
want to use maximum compression to minimise the volume moving
over the lan and that takes more than minimal horsepower on the
PC that ghost is running on, to minimise the pauses in lan traffic.

The machines used here are P 4 2.7 Ghz desktop with UDMA (100 probably)
drives. The compression used is "fast".

Thank for your answer, I'll try to analyze the traffic with a Sniffer.

BTW, even if we use Drive Snapshot instead of GHOST (wich is more than
twice faster as it runs under W2K) the speed problem remains in case of
a restoration wich must be done under DOS (for a system boot partition).

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed (e-mail address removed) wrote

Yes, we now use Drive Snapshot (wich is more convenient than
GHOST as it doesn't require a reboot) to backup machines with
up to 4 GB daily. But we expected to be able to save a 230 GB
server before rebuilding its RAID array and it was not reasonable.

Sure, the only thing that makes any sense in that
situation is to use something like a firewire drive instead.

I'd call that perfect instead (on 100 Mbps Ethernet,
it's almost 100% of the available bandwidth)

Yeah, I didnt read that carefully enough, I assumed you meant
MB/min, how Drive Image and Ghost list it during the image creation.

Here you say the problem is the LAN (it could be
the DOS NIC driver or how DOS handles Network
I/O, doing a request then waiting for completion).

Nope, if you were really getting 10MB/min, it wouldnt be that.

And here you say the problem is in the machine running DOS
+ GHOST (because DOS and / or GHOST arent't multi-tasked ?)

Nope, just due to the way ghost operates in that situation.

Its always running on DOS even when the destination for
the image is a local drive, so it cant be lack of multitasking.

Don't you realize you're contracdicting yourself ?

I'm not.

The machines used here are P 4 2.7 Ghz desktop with
UDMA (100 probably) drives. The compression used is "fast".

Thank for your answer, I'll try to analyze the traffic with a Sniffer.

I dont think there is any need to. The pauses with no lan
traffic are very visible with ghost and thats just as true
even on a very simple network with just two PCs on it.

It appears that ghost is written that way.

I get that with a variety of different NICs so it isnt the particular driver.

BTW, even if we use Drive Snapshot instead of GHOST (wich is more than
twice faster as it runs under W2K) the speed problem remains in case of
a restoration wich must be done under DOS (for a system boot partition).

OK, maybe there is some problem with the dos NDIS driver or something.

 

[Peter]

Ghost 8.0 is worse than Ghost 7.5 in a sense that it behaves
differently.
It is possible to get speeds of 600-750MB/min with Ghost 8.0, but with
a specific setup only. Ghost supports a multitude of different network
options, all of them NOT being equal from the performance, reliability
and stability point of view.
Most of the problems I have seen are with multicasting (TCP/IP stack
code embedded into ghost.exe), some do exist with TCP/IP based MS
Client 3.0, I didn't see any problems with NETBEUI yet. But that setup
might not suit everybody.
When you report network related problems, just make sure that you have
tried Ghost Boot Wizard boot floppy (actually all flavours) before
reporting problems; that sets a good reproducable baseline for
troubleshooting.

Peter
[All opinions expressed above are my private opinions]

 

[Peter]

There is no LiveUpdate for Ghost 8.0 yet.
There were some privately posted Ghost 8.0 fixes by Symantec support
staff.
Ghost 8.0 can work with a very good speed (better than Ghost 7.5) to
the network share, but you need to create a custom setup.

Peter
[All opinions expressed above are my private opinions]

 

[glwhit]

You said:

*** The machines used here are P 4 2.7 Ghz desktop with UDMA (100
probably)
drives. The compression used is "fast". ***


If you use "fast" compression, the img file is must larger than the
highest compression setting. Therefore you have more data to send over
the network, which means it will take longer. When you have a nice
fast machine, use the highest compression, as the bottleneck is going
to be sending the data over the network.

 

[J. Clarke]

You said:

*** The machines used here are P 4 2.7 Ghz desktop with UDMA (100
probably)
drives. The compression used is "fast". ***


If you use "fast" compression, the img file is must larger than the
highest compression setting. Therefore you have more data to send over
the network, which means it will take longer. When you have a nice
fast machine, use the highest compression, as the bottleneck is going
to be sending the data over the network.

Doesn't even have to be all that fast, I noticed throughput improvement
using high compression with a P200.