CPU Utilization s/b 100% for backup?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Im doing image backups over my home LAN 100baseT to a Dell Dimension P3 600
XP SP2, 640mb, to USB 2.0 PCI card to 250G external harddrive.

During this backup time, CPU utilization on the P3 Server is 100% and
network is 20%.

If I do the identical backup to a installed HD on the same P3 PC the CPU
utilization is 75% and network still 20%.

Any way to make USB more efficient CPU use wise.?

What should CPU usage be for something like this?

Any insight appreciated

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Im doing image backups over my home LAN 100baseT to a Dell Dimension P3 600
>XP SP2, 640mb, to USB 2.0 PCI card to 250G external harddrive.

What kind of image backups, using what program? Compression may eat a
lot of CPU on that system...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

its Norton Ghost. The CPU usage problem is at the destination PC. All the
compression processing is at the source PC. I must be someting to do with
the USB. Are there better USB 2.0 PCI cards that others. maybe one that
offloads the CPU of processing?

<William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
news:rg6201lumrd8icr10kn249sougf2gv3man@4ax.com...
> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Im doing image backups over my home LAN 100baseT to a Dell Dimension P3
>>600
>>XP SP2, 640mb, to USB 2.0 PCI card to 250G external harddrive.
>
> What kind of image backups, using what program? Compression may eat a
> lot of CPU on that system...
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>its Norton Ghost.

Enterprise or cable-linked? Ghost is a good program, but it's _very_
slow...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

doesnt matter....exact same backup, same data, same network . Backup to
USB2.0 is like 5x as slow as to disk on the same PC over the network
<William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
news:r52301hnrk7m2i2uh704k3qi79s6uo9c0o@4ax.com...
> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>its Norton Ghost.
>
> Enterprise or cable-linked? Ghost is a good program, but it's _very_
> slow...
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

How do you figure that?

Network = 100mbps
USB2 = 480mbps

Tom
"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5H_Md.80661$Tf5.46875@lakeread03...
> doesnt matter....exact same backup, same data, same network . Backup to
> USB2.0 is like 5x as slow as to disk on the same PC over the network
> <William P.N. Smith> wrote in message
> news:r52301hnrk7m2i2uh704k3qi79s6uo9c0o@4ax.com...
>> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>its Norton Ghost.
>>
>> Enterprise or cable-linked? Ghost is a good program, but it's _very_
>> slow...
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:
>Network = 100mbps
>USB2 = 480mbps

Those are theoretical hardware-level link speeds, and may have little
relation to real-world operation. The OP is, indeed, seeing
significant differences. As a SWAG, I'd say drivers, hardware, and
general software overhead.

Try http://www.hdtune.com for a fine disk speed benchmarking tool...