Anyone have a clue as to why Norton Ghost...

Message boards : Number crunching : Anyone have a clue as to why Norton Ghost...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 63537 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:25:41 UTC

slows down my WU's from around 3 hours flat to almost 4 hours? I also tried the trial version of True Image 8. Same thing.

If I don't run either, no problem. BUT, I need to have something for an automatic backup - this is my main business system, here. I need a backup system that doesn't require a reinstall of XP should I lose a hard drive.

I also note that no other computers in the office seem to be affected by Ghost or TI running their WU's.

Here is the system:
HP a265c PC
XP SP2
ASUS P4SD-LA mobo, 3.28 BIOS (latest avail)
3.2G HT P4 (recently upgraded from 2.8G)
1 GB RAM
1 160GB WD 7200 Hard Drive
1 CD-RW, 1 Sony DVD-RW DL

Any (useful) ideas???

Thanks!

KMan
ID: 63537 · Report as offensive
Hans Dorn
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2262
Credit: 26,448,570
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 63539 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:28:10 UTC - in response to Message 63537.  

> slows down my WU's from around 3 hours flat to almost 4 hours? I also tried
> the trial version of True Image 8. Same thing.
>

AFAIK ghost images are compressed, so building them takes some CPU power.

Regards Hans

ID: 63539 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 63541 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:29:30 UTC - in response to Message 63539.  

> AFAIK ghost images are compressed, so building them takes some CPU power.
>
> Regards Hans

I should have been more specific. Sorry. The WU's slow down 24/7, even though the backups usually only take a few minutes...
ID: 63541 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13840
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 63542 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:30:14 UTC - in response to Message 63537.  

> slows down my WU's from around 3 hours flat to almost 4 hours? I also tried
> the trial version of True Image 8. Same thing.

Check your startup files (System configuration Utility, startup tab).
It's probably got some osrt of Quick start or Short cut running on the taskbar & that's sucking up CPU cycles.
It'd probably be worth clobbering a lot of the stuff you find there (M$ Office, Find Fast, video & audio driver "utilities", Quicktime etc).
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 63542 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 63549 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:33:13 UTC - in response to Message 63542.  

> Check your startup files (System configuration Utility, startup tab).
> It's probably got some osrt of Quick start or Short cut running on the taskbar
> & that's sucking up CPU cycles.
> It'd probably be worth clobbering a lot of the stuff you find there (M$
> Office, Find Fast, video & audio driver "utilities", Quicktime etc).

Thanks, I though of that, too. I have a pretty bare startup on this system. Only 4 items, to be exact... a keyboard driver, my AVG antivirus, the TaskSwitch utility, and Spy Sweeper to keep the crap off... Everything else is disabled...
ID: 63549 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13840
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 63559 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 22:39:08 UTC - in response to Message 63549.  

> Thanks, I though of that, too. I have a pretty bare startup on this system.
> Only 4 items, to be exact... a keyboard driver, my AVG antivirus, the
> TaskSwitch utility, and Spy Sweeper to keep the crap off... Everything else
> is disabled...

Might be worth checking running services- it could be loading things up there so they don't show in the startup section.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 63559 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 63571 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 23:06:55 UTC - in response to Message 63559.  
Last modified: 12 Jan 2005, 23:13:23 UTC

> Might be worth checking running services- it could be loading things up there
> so they don't show in the startup section.

It has one service that runs all the time (a scheduling service, I believe), but that doesn't appear to be the culprit. I did an experiment by stopping the service for a day to see what that would do for my WU times. Nothing. They still are running out to almost 4 hours per unit instead of the 3 they should be running.

I tell ya, this thing really has me baffled. I've been at this for days and haven't found anything anywhere on the net about it. I've tried eveything I can think of to no avail. I've even downloaded and installed the Intel chipset drivers just to make sure there isn't some low-level problem there. Didn't make any difference for my problem, of course.

I just wish I knew what these type programs do and what they latch onto or start or whatever. Might give me a clue as to why this is happening. I mean, you wouldn't think they would be doing ANYTHING while there isn't a backup in progress, so why would the computer system take almost an hour more to do a WU? I don't get it...

ID: 63571 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 63594 - Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 23:49:15 UTC

Update. I've submitted a question to Symantec tech support about this, asking them why my system slows down with their Ghost 9 installed. This is the response I just received...

"We have received your request for assistance and a Symantec Authorized Technical Support agent will contact you by email within the next 4-5 business days to help answer your questions..."

4 to 5 business days??? I bet my customers are glad I don't take that $#%& long...

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....


ID: 63594 · Report as offensive
Tom Gutman

Send message
Joined: 20 Jul 00
Posts: 48
Credit: 219,500
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64154 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 18:14:12 UTC - in response to Message 63537.  

What does the task manager show for CPU usage? From your figures I would expect that SETI is getting less than 75% of the CPU -- so who's taking the rest?

------- Tom Gutman
ID: 64154 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64158 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 18:43:08 UTC - in response to Message 64154.  

> What does the task manager show for CPU usage? From your figures I would
> expect that SETI is getting less than 75% of the CPU -- so who's taking the
> rest?

That's just it! The Task Manager shows that SETI is taking the whole thing (50% for each running WU - I'm hyperthreaded).

This is what makes me think that the installation of Ghost is replacing a DLL or some other file that it shouldn't. Something that is causing the slowdown.

I've just uninstalled and reinstalled Ghost again, then ran "sfc /scannow" to make sure all the XP files are what they're supposed to be. I'm about to use PerfectDisk 7 to defragment the drive, then let SETI run to see what's what...

I'll report back as to what I find out...
ID: 64158 · Report as offensive
Profile Dunc
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 02
Posts: 129
Credit: 2,166,460
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64160 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 18:47:47 UTC - in response to Message 64158.  
Last modified: 13 Jan 2005, 18:49:00 UTC

> > What does the task manager show for CPU usage? From your figures I
> would
> > expect that SETI is getting less than 75% of the CPU -- so who's taking
> the
> > rest?
>
> That's just it! The Task Manager shows that SETI is taking the whole thing
> (50% for each running WU - I'm hyperthreaded).
>
I think that is how it should be.

with one cpu it should take 100%
with 2 cpus (or 1 with HT) you should have 2 instances with 50%
with 4 cpus (or 2 with HT) you should have 4 instances with 25%

Unless of course you set your options to only use 1 cpu with a 2 cpu system etc..

Dunc
ID: 64160 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64162 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 18:52:46 UTC - in response to Message 64160.  

> > That's just it! The Task Manager shows that SETI is taking the whole
> thing
> > (50% for each running WU - I'm hyperthreaded).
> >
> I think that is how it should be.
>
> with one cpu it should take 100%
> with 2 cpus (or 1 with HT) you should have 2 instances with 50%
> with 4 cpus (or 2 with HT) you should have 4 instances with 25%

Exactly! SETI is doing exactly as it should. So, what's slowing down my computer??? That's the puzzle. Why, only when Ghost is installed, does SETI take almost 4 hours to run each WU instead of the usual 3 hours (when Ghost is NOT installed)?? This is the mystery I'm trying to figure out...

K
ID: 64162 · Report as offensive
Profile Dunc
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 02
Posts: 129
Credit: 2,166,460
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64163 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 18:55:31 UTC - in response to Message 64162.  

> > > That's just it! The Task Manager shows that SETI is taking the
> whole
> > thing
> > > (50% for each running WU - I'm hyperthreaded).
> > >
> > I think that is how it should be.
> >
> > with one cpu it should take 100%
> > with 2 cpus (or 1 with HT) you should have 2 instances with 50%
> > with 4 cpus (or 2 with HT) you should have 4 instances with 25%
>
> Exactly! SETI is doing exactly as it should. So, what's slowing down my
> computer??? That's the puzzle. Why, only when Ghost is installed, does SETI
> take almost 4 hours to run each WU instead of the usual 3 hours (when Ghost is
> NOT installed)?? This is the mystery I'm trying to figure out...
>
> K
>

Sorry, that is what happens when you don't fully read the whole thread

I have Ghost installed on one of my boxes, and have not noticed a slow down TBH.

Dunc
ID: 64163 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64164 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 19:03:26 UTC - in response to Message 64163.  
Last modified: 13 Jan 2005, 19:03:54 UTC

> Sorry, that is what happens when you don't fully read the whole thread
>
> I have Ghost installed on one of my boxes, and have not noticed a slow down
> TBH.
>
> Dunc

Not a problem...

I also have Ghost on other boxes in the office. None of them seem to slow down, at least not as much and as noticeably as my desktop system does. Very frustrating -

K
ID: 64164 · Report as offensive
Walt Gribben
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 353
Credit: 304,016
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64171 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 19:21:16 UTC - in response to Message 64162.  
Last modified: 13 Jan 2005, 19:21:43 UTC

Does Ghost have an option that tracks changed files? So it knows when to schedule another backup? It could be setting a system wide hook for all file accesses, which would really impact BOINC. I found the same thing happened when I installed an "undelete" program.

Try this: change your preferences for "write to disk every..." to 1800 - thats 30 minutes. Let it run for awhile to see if it makes a difference. Be sure to set it back to some more reasonable value later.
ID: 64171 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64174 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 19:29:47 UTC - in response to Message 64171.  

> Does Ghost have an option that tracks changed files? So it knows when to
> schedule another backup? It could be setting a system wide hook for
> all file accesses, which would really impact BOINC. I found the same
> thing happened when I installed an "undelete" program.
>
> Try this: change your preferences for "write to disk every..." to 1800 - thats
> 30 minutes. Let it run for awhile to see if it makes a difference. Be sure
> to set it back to some more reasonable value later.

Excellent question, Walt. I've wondered about that, too. I've looked for evidence of that type of hook, but haven't seen anything to suggest one, yet. I'll keep looking, though.

I'm running 600 (every 10 minutes) for disk writing, but I'll try the 1800 and see if that makes a difference. Great suggestion! Thanks!
ID: 64174 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64181 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 19:43:11 UTC - in response to Message 64171.  

> Does Ghost have an option that tracks changed files? So it knows when to
> schedule another backup? It could be setting a system wide hook for
> all file accesses, which would really impact BOINC. I found the same
> thing happened when I installed an "undelete" program.

Looks like you got yourself a BINGO, Walt!

I scouted around this new program I'm using to check stuff out with (called Process Explorer) and when I open up the "System" process lo and behold there are a bunch of threads called "PQV2i.sys!VSnapFSNotification"...

Now, let's break that down, shall we?

PQV2i.sys = the Ghost process
VSnap = I Googled this and it's an "open file backup utility" for use in third party backup programs, like Ghost...
FSNotification = I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess "FileSave Notification" - ya THINK???

So, perhaps Ghost is logging every filesave that occurs on the PC it's running on. Crap. Why don't they just look for the Archive flag on the $@#*& file???
ID: 64181 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64196 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 20:30:45 UTC

OK, so now I'm wondering how I can minimize the slowdown. Maybe if I turn off the incremental backups and just have it do a full backup, instead? That way Ghost won't need to know which files have been changed because it will have to back them all up, anyway...

I smell an experiment coming on...

ID: 64196 · Report as offensive
Walt Gribben
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 353
Credit: 304,016
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64223 - Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 21:49:34 UTC - in response to Message 64196.  

> OK, so now I'm wondering how I can minimize the slowdown. Maybe if I turn off
> the incremental backups and just have it do a full backup, instead? That way
> Ghost won't need to know which files have been changed because it will have to
> back them all up, anyway...
>
> I smell an experiment coming on...

Problem with automagically taking incremental backups as changes are made is you end up with a lot of useless info. All the dynamic data written as the system and applications run, but only needed as they are running. Browser cache, intermediate BOINC checkpoints, editor "backup" files and so on.

If you separate out your "work" files by putting them on another partition, you can have Ghost keep making incremental on-the-fly backups of that one, and then just make a daily incremental backup of everything else.
ID: 64223 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirigo Software, LLC

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 01
Posts: 36
Credit: 7,564,744
RAC: 0
United States
Message 64308 - Posted: 14 Jan 2005, 0:09:41 UTC
Last modified: 14 Jan 2005, 0:09:56 UTC

Well, I tried setting Ghost up to do just full backups but the filesave threads stayed running, even after a reboot. So, guess that won't save me a thing.

Guess I'm stuck at this point...
ID: 64308 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Anyone have a clue as to why Norton Ghost...


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.