Major slowdown running Ghost

Why does my computer slow to a crawl when I am running Ghost to copy from
one HD to another, or Nero to burn a DVD?

Obviously, because Ghost or Nero is using all the resources, processor time,
and memory, right?

But--I have XP SP2, huge amounts of HD space, a P4 2.8 processor, 1gb of
relatively fast RAM, and the Task Manager shows 50% CPU usage, 160 mb
physical memory remaining. Even writing this post is painfully slow, and the
OE stops responding intermittently, apparently during CPU usage spikes,
according to the Task Manager.

Is this behavior unusual or expected? Is there a remedy available in the
pagefile settings or some place else?

Thanks.

Ken

Addendum--

Under Processes it shows about 50-60% of usage by "System Idle Process" and
about 25-30% by PQV2isvc.exe which I assume is the Ghost system file.

Maybe that helps to clarify it.

Ken

"KenV" <kvatz@mindsnospampring.com> wrote in message
news:O5xkyS9DGHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Why does my computer slow to a crawl when I am running Ghost to copy from
> one HD to another, or Nero to burn a DVD?
>
> Obviously, because Ghost or Nero is using all the resources, processor
> time, and memory, right?
>
> But--I have XP SP2, huge amounts of HD space, a P4 2.8 processor, 1gb of
> relatively fast RAM, and the Task Manager shows 50% CPU usage, 160 mb
> physical memory remaining. Even writing this post is painfully slow, and
> the OE stops responding intermittently, apparently during CPU usage
> spikes, according to the Task Manager.
>
> Is this behavior unusual or expected? Is there a remedy available in the
> pagefile settings or some place else?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ken
>

KenV wrote:
> Addendum--
>
> Under Processes it shows about 50-60% of usage by "System Idle
> Process" and about 25-30% by PQV2isvc.exe which I assume is the Ghost
> system file.
> Maybe that helps to clarify it.
>
> Ken
>
> "KenV" <kvatz@mindsnospampring.com> wrote in message
> news:O5xkyS9DGHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Why does my computer slow to a crawl when I am running Ghost to copy
>> from one HD to another, or Nero to burn a DVD?
>>
>> Obviously, because Ghost or Nero is using all the resources,
>> processor time, and memory, right?
>>
>> But--I have XP SP2, huge amounts of HD space, a P4 2.8 processor,
>> 1gb of relatively fast RAM, and the Task Manager shows 50% CPU
>> usage, 160 mb physical memory remaining. Even writing this post is
>> painfully slow, and the OE stops responding intermittently,
>> apparently during CPU usage spikes, according to the Task Manager.
>>
>> Is this behavior unusual or expected? Is there a remedy available in
>> the pagefile settings or some place else?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ken

Just some ideas:

There are a lot of factors involved. Naturally, tying up the computer with a
Ghost or a DVD/CD-R burn will slow things down. However, these days, people
expect their PCs to multitask quite well when doing a burn, especially if
the have an HT verion of the P4 or some other multi-core or multi-core-like
technology.

Of course, what you are doing is not only CPU intensive, as Ghost does
(de)compressing etc. it is also harddrive intensive reading and writing. So
perhaps you've found a bottleneck on your rig.

Some of the rememdies, besides buying expensive Cheetahs or some such, is to
make sure the number of background programs are at a minimum, making sure
the harddrives are defragmented, making sure the BIOS settings are properly
set, and by having reasonable expectations of your equipment. Don't believe
all the boasts.

A separate harddrive for the pagefile [in the opinion of some] on another
channel may help speed things up because Windows can then use that other
drive for swapping without affecting the performance of the "main"
harddrive. In my opinion, a second harddrive is almost a "must" anyway ..
make sure it is a relatively fast one - at least 7200 rpm with at least a
2MB cache minimum.

Oh .. make sure the cables for the harddrive are the 80-pin types and not
the old 40 pins and check the DMA settings for the HDDs and DVD-R. And make
sure the DVD-R is on another channel than the "main" harddrive.

You can also check to make sure you have the most up-to-date drivers etc.
for the DVD equipment. Sometimes the manufacturers have drivers and flashes
available at the websites that are more up-to-date than what may be your
current.

Also, make sure to thoroughly scan your computer for malware and remove if
found. It is notorious for slowing a system down.

Yes, there are various tweaks - most of them won't make much difference ..
you can get into turning off some Services and so on. But getting involved
with that means reading up because you can cause yourself problems turning
off Services holus bolus. One Service can be dependant on another etc. etc.
You could find you can't even get the thing to boot and have no idea which
Service did it!

>From what I understand, when you use Ghost 9 or Ghost 10 to make a
backup image of your hard drive, it must capture "in-process" updates
to any sectors that are being modified as it is backing up. That's one
factor.

The other is compression. If you set it to High, it consumes a lot
more cpu resources. Try normal compression which I have found gives me
almost about the same output image size as high.

When I use Ghost 10 to make a system image, I don't do anything else so
that the hot-image is as clean as possible. Also, I usually defrag my
system before making the image; my theory is that a compact source
drive makes for a smaller backup, since fewer sectors are in use.

Also disable the XP Indexing service.

I schedule Ghost to do my backup image at 6:00 AM before I get up.


"GhostMan" <ghost4me@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1136239417.615080.219010@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> >From what I understand, when you use Ghost 9 or Ghost 10 to make a
> backup image of your hard drive, it must capture "in-process" updates
> to any sectors that are being modified as it is backing up. That's one
> factor.
>
> The other is compression. If you set it to High, it consumes a lot
> more cpu resources. Try normal compression which I have found gives me
> almost about the same output image size as high.
>
> When I use Ghost 10 to make a system image, I don't do anything else so
> that the hot-image is as clean as possible. Also, I usually defrag my
> system before making the image; my theory is that a compact source
> drive makes for a smaller backup, since fewer sectors are in use.
>
> Also disable the XP Indexing service.
>

Also, in the Ghost 10> Options> Performance Tab, you can adjust the speed
and as a result the amount of system resources it uses.


"Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g-2dnf7Hv6UsMiTeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>I schedule Ghost to do my backup image at 6:00 AM before I get up.
>
>
> "GhostMan" <ghost4me@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1136239417.615080.219010@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>> >From what I understand, when you use Ghost 9 or Ghost 10 to make a
>> backup image of your hard drive, it must capture "in-process" updates
>> to any sectors that are being modified as it is backing up. That's one
>> factor.
>>
>> The other is compression. If you set it to High, it consumes a lot
>> more cpu resources. Try normal compression which I have found gives me
>> almost about the same output image size as high.
>>
>> When I use Ghost 10 to make a system image, I don't do anything else so
>> that the hot-image is as clean as possible. Also, I usually defrag my
>> system before making the image; my theory is that a compact source
>> drive makes for a smaller backup, since fewer sectors are in use.
>>
>> Also disable the XP Indexing service.
>>
>
>

"Saucy Lemon" <saucy@s.can.be> wrote in message
news:egStEE%23DGHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> make sure the number of background programs are at a minimum, making sure
> the harddrives are defragmented, making sure the BIOS settings are
> properly set, and by having reasonable expectations of your equipment. > A
> separate harddrive for the pagefile [in the opinion of some] on another
> channel may help speed things up because Windows can then use that other
> drive for swapping without affecting the performance of the "main"
> harddrive. >

"GhostMan" <ghost4me@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1136239417.615080.219010@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>
> When I use Ghost 10 to make a system image, I don't do anything else so
> that the hot-image is as clean as possible. Also, I usually defrag my
> system > Also disable the XP Indexing service.

"Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:-NCdnQQVKLMnKSTeRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> Also, in the Ghost 10> Options> Performance Tab, you can adjust the speed
> and as a result the amount of system resources it uses.

Thanks to all of you for your help.

I checked the BIOS and noted that the MPS revision was 1.1 instead of the
1.4 revision which is needed to enable hyperthreading, which my processor
has, so I fixed that one.

I moved the pagefile to the second hard drive. I had very recently defragged
the hard drive I am backing up. I haven´t yet disabled the indexing service.

I did a trial run of a backup after making these changes, and it definitely
ran better, using a lower processor percentage according to the Task
Manager.

As for Ghost 10.0 having a performance tab, that is similar to what Nero
has, and I can imagine that that function would help greatly if I can't do
the backups when the computer is otherwise idle.

Dave, do you think it's worth $49 after competitve rebate to get Ghost 10.0
over 9.0? Are there other features in 10.0 that would justify the expense,
in your opinion?

Ken

Well, I like Ghost 10 better than Ghost 9. It's been more stable for me.
But I think you can find it much cheaper than that. I've seen it from free
to $10 after rebates.

Dave

"KenV" <kvatz@mindsnospampring.com> wrote in message
news:uguM1z$DGHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Dave, do you think it's worth $49 after competitve rebate to get Ghost
> 10.0 over 9.0? Are there other features in 10.0 that would justify the
> expense, in your opinion?
>
> Ken
>

"Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M4ednchhUrP1ViTeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> Well, I like Ghost 10 better than Ghost 9. It's been more stable for me.
> But I think you can find it much cheaper than that. I've seen it from
> free to $10 after rebates.
>

Dave, so far I can´t find it that cheaply.

But I did look on Amazon, and the customer reviews of 10.0 are pretty
scary--from major problems with installation to bad crashes during
operation, and especially a huge slowdown in computer performance while it
is running. Some of the reviewers say they have stayed with Ghost 2003 which
I think was the version before Symantec took it over. Obviously we don't
know what kinds of systems the reviewers are using, or if they know what
they're doing.

For now, I think I'll stick with 9.0 since it seems to work reliably, even
if it does slow things down a bit.

Ken

I've read the reviews too. But I sure don't see what they're talking
about.


"KenV" <kvatz@mindsnospampring.com> wrote in message
news:%23eoCSKBEGHA.3904@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Dave" <funinatl@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M4ednchhUrP1ViTeRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>> Well, I like Ghost 10 better than Ghost 9. It's been more stable for me.
>> But I think you can find it much cheaper than that. I've seen it from
>> free to $10 after rebates.
>>
>
> Dave, so far I can´t find it that cheaply.
>
> But I did look on Amazon, and the customer reviews of 10.0 are pretty
> scary--from major problems with installation to bad crashes during
> operation, and especially a huge slowdown in computer performance while it
> is running. Some of the reviewers say they have stayed with Ghost 2003
> which I think was the version before Symantec took it over. Obviously we
> don't know what kinds of systems the reviewers are using, or if they know
> what they're doing.
>
> For now, I think I'll stick with 9.0 since it seems to work reliably, even
> if it does slow things down a bit.
>
> Ken
>