locked
RESTORE HORRENDOUSLY SLOW RRS feed

  • Question

  • Today I restored an Outlook PST file from one of my client PC backups.  I restored the file from the backup dated 7/1.  IT TOOK 47 MINUTES TO RESTORE AN 850MB FILE.

    On 6/27 I replaced the system drive and used the Server Repair Disk to recreate the System Partition and C: drive on the new drive.  Total restore size was 19GB.  RESTORE OF 19GB TOOK OVER 4 HOURS.

    Both the file and drive restore worked when completed but the time to complete the restores was unacceptable.

    I am not having any other performace problems with my server.

    I used Robocopy to move 390GB between drives (Shared Folders) and that took under 3 hours.

    IS ANYONE ELSE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH SLOW RESTORE TIMES?

     

    UPDATE: 10/22/2011

    Since creating the original post I have found (at least at my home) this problem only affects restores to a XP client PC.  If I restore the same file using a Windows 7 client the restore works at a reasonable speed. 

     


    Texas


    • Edited by TxRedCat Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:02 PM
    Thursday, July 7, 2011 5:02 PM

All replies

  • Restore is relatively slow; this is because it's reconstructing a disk image cluster by cluster, over your home network. If your network is congested, or you have incorrect driver settings, you could see even slower restore performance. The times you report seem a bit out of line to me, though.

    Have you submitted a bug report on Connect?


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, July 8, 2011 1:36 PM
  • Restore is relatively slow; this is because it's reconstructing a disk image cluster by cluster, over your home network. If your network is congested, or you have incorrect driver settings, you could see even slower restore performance. The times you report seem a bit out of line to me, though.

    Have you submitted a bug report on Connect?


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    Hi Ken;

    The system drive restore was disk to disk so LAN performance was not an issue.  Based on the time to restore C: I estimated using the Server Repair Disk to move 390GB of Shared Folders on D: would have taken about 4 days.  Today using Robocopy I copied the 390GB of Shared Folders disk to disk in 114 minutes.

    The file restore was done accross the network. I use all gigabit adapters and switches and have no reason to think there was a LAN issue. I was the only one using the network at the time.

    Last night did a "Client Computer Restore" over the network, a Win 7 System Partition and C: drive, about 18GB.  It took about 20 minutes which I would consider normal.

    I wanted to see if other have the same problems before reporting on Connect.


    Texas
    Friday, July 8, 2011 10:14 PM
  • I agree, that's far too slow for WHS2011. I can restore my laptop boot drive (>50GB) in less than 40 minutes on a GB LAN - similar to your Client Restore. I don't see why an 850MB Outlook .pst file should restore at a slower rate than that - unfortunately I can't test that at the moment.

     


    Phil P.S. If you find my comment helpful or if it answers your question, please mark it as such.
    Saturday, July 9, 2011 2:46 PM
  • I am having this same issue. I'm currently testing Home Server 2011 to see if I can live without DE and WHS v1, but while I can backup and upload and download files via UNC/SMB just fine (I get normal gigabit speeds there), I'm having a TERRIBLE time trying to restore. Like TxRedCat, I'm getting MAYBE 500k per second to restore (and only restore it seems) 1 GB of data. That's NOT acceptable. I tried my WHS 2011 installation origionaly on Server 2008 R2 within Hyper-V, but experience the same issues, so I built up a completely separate box with a 3.0 GHz Core2Duo and 2 Gigs of RAM. Same issue. I've wasted two days and honestly, I'm going to give up soon if I can't find an answer. This is silly and, honestly, worthless if I can't do something as simple as restore.

     

    Update: I have also tried disabling TCP and UDP Offload settings on the NICs to see if that would help (based on some other suggestions). It does not. I've also tried multiple NIC's. I'm inches away from bagging this whole thing. 

    Update 2: I've now tried various platforms (AMD and Intel), different system manufacturers. No matter what I try, it's the same result. I'm at the point now where I'm giving up. Not worth getting a product not only stripped of a very valuable feature in DE, but also a SIMPLE restore of data is so slow it's almost comical, though I'm not laughing. 
    • Edited by byusinger84 Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 AM Update
    Sunday, July 10, 2011 6:14 AM
  • Same here.

    I am testing WHS 2011 RC, and today was the first time I actually needed to restore a drive (120GB of data).

    It creates a virtual drive and copies the files from there. Thing is, it's doing it at a VERY slow rate of 2.2MB/s, which will take around 24hours (WTH?!).

    Some info:

    WHS 2011 sits on two mirrored 160GB drivers alone.

    Data array is a 6x Samsung F3 1TB (7,200rpm, 32mb cache) @ Raid 5 on Intel ICH 10R

    Intel Gigabit (Desktop CT 1000) PCIE x1 Lan

    8GB DDR2 800, Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 4.0 Ghz, Asus P5Q-E

    I am restoring to a 2x160GB SSD @ Raid0, over gigabit ethernet (as mentioned) to my pc, which also has an Intel PCIE Gigabit adapter, and connected through a 3Com 8port gigabit switch.

    Both machine's cpu utilization is near 0 , network utilization is around 4%.

    When copying files from the client pc to the server and vise verse, I get 100-110MB/s (even 20GB files or lots of small ones).

     

    So, What gives? I need to descide if to purchase WHS 2011 as this RC will not last long and the restore function just killed the point of having it.

    Should I just use the Windows 7 Backup and backup to a UNC on the server?

    *Edit*

    After reading a bit, i descided to use ClientRestoreWizard.exe from the "C:\Program Files\Windows Server\Bin\ClientRestore\1FAE75EB-B11A-4883-BCEE-9AC1C6D95216" on the server drive (copy to desktop on the client machine) and only restore the drive I need (although i don't need all the files) and voila, no virtual disk and time estimate is 20m (Network Utilization is over 80%).

    Credit to http://usingwindowshomeserver.com/2011/04/13/windows-home-server-2011-client-restore-wizard-video-edition/

    Problem still persists if I want to restore specific files...

    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:00 PM
  • Same here.

    I am testing WHS 2011 RC, and today was the first time I actually needed to restore a drive (120GB of data).

    It creates a virtual drive and copies the files from there. Thing is, it's doing it at a VERY slow rate of 2.2MB/s, which will take around 24hours (WTH?!).

    Some info:

    WHS 2011 sits on two mirrored 160GB drivers alone.

    Data array is a 6x Samsung F3 1TB (7,200rpm, 32mb cache) @ Raid 5 on Intel ICH 10R

    Intel Gigabit (Desktop CT 1000) PCIE x1 Lan

    8GB DDR2 800, Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 @ 4.0 Ghz, Asus P5Q-E

    I am restoring to a 2x160GB SSD @ Raid0, over gigabit ethernet (as mentioned) to my pc, which also has an Intel PCIE Gigabit adapter, and connected through a 3Com 8port gigabit switch.

    Both machine's cpu utilization is near 0 , network utilization is around 4%.

    When copying files from the client pc to the server and vise verse, I get 100-110MB/s (even 20GB files or lots of small ones).

     

    So, What gives? I need to descide if to purchase WHS 2011 as this RC will not last long and the restore function just killed the point of having it.

    Should I just use the Windows 7 Backup and backup to a UNC on the server?

    *Edit*

    After reading a bit, i descided to use ClientRestoreWizard.exe from the "C:\Program Files\Windows Server\Bin\ClientRestore\1FAE75EB-B11A-4883-BCEE-9AC1C6D95216" on the server drive (copy to desktop on the client machine) and only restore the drive I need (although i don't need all the files) and voila, no virtual disk and time estimate is 20m (Network Utilization is over 80%).

    Credit to http://usingwindowshomeserver.com/2011/04/13/windows-home-server-2011-client-restore-wizard-video-edition/

    Problem still persists if I want to restore specific files...

    If it is specifik files, no need to use the restore wizard. Just open the mounted drive and copy and paste through Windows Explorer.

    http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whs2011/thread/83126b61-5bce-4901-abb6-3b6f0f71a15a

     


    WHS 2011 RTM up and running, v.1 gone to meet its maker...
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:34 PM
  • I did that, same result (it's what the backup does - mounts the drive and copies the files) - slow as hell.
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:17 PM
  • Guys. If you read the issues, we are not having problems with full drive restore. That's great and all, but there are times I don't WANT the whole drive restored. Especially in my case I don't want to backup the full drive, usually just the user folders. I could care less about the program files directory etc. Manual restores are just slow and there's no reason for it as far as I can tell. Restoring a gig of data EVEN with maybe some overhead to read the .dat files should NOT take 24 hours. Even if I got 10-20 megs a second I would be happy. Around a meg or less is NOT acceptable.
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:30 PM
  • I know, I had no choice but to restore the whole drive which is not a solution.

    I don't think it has anything to do with performance (network/cpu) as mine were doing absolutley nothing while restoring specific files/folders.

    Do they bother to respond here usually?

    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:40 PM
  • No idea. I just don't think anyone knows WHY it's happening or how to fix it. I have tried intel nic, realtek nics, nvidia nics, broadcom nics, marvell yukon, AMD and Intel platform, RAID no RAID. Maybe it's just fundamentally broken. :(
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:47 PM
  • Bottom line is that the restore mode you're using, Single File Restore, isn't designed for restoring large amounts of data quickly. It's designed to let you get back a file or folder that you modified or deleted recently, without having to restore the entire disk.

    Whole disk/bare metal restore is designed for large amounts of data. Windows Home Server performs best when you let it work as automatically as possible; this includes not micro-managing backups to only get what's essential.

    All that said, single file restore is abysmally slow when restoring large amounts of data, and I'm bugging it as such. :) I still think some people are having other problems; I have a restore of 8 GB running now (drag/drop from the virtual drive, but it's the same performance when I use the wizard) and it's running at 1.8 to 2.0 MB/s, so it's looking like it will take around an hour.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:32 PM
  • I realize that. However, when it works perfectly fine in V1, there is definately something broken. I understand they are different architectures etc, but...one would think that if it works in V1, it's not going to break in V2.
    Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:34 PM
  • I did that, same result (it's what the backup does - mounts the drive and copies the files) - slow as hell.

    Works ok for me.
    Not slow enough to make you go crazy like the restore time for the Wizard does.

     


    WHS 2011 RTM up and running, v.1 gone to meet its maker...
    Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:28 AM
  • Like I said, abysmally slow and bugged as such. Just under 2.5 hours for 8 GB is pretty bad. :)

    Not that it's broken. It's not; I verified that all files restored, and that they were byte for byte duplicates of the originals. It's just really slow.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:46 PM
  • Like I said, abysmally slow and bugged as such. Just under 2.5 hours for 8 GB is pretty bad. :)

    Not that it's broken. It's not; I verified that all files restored, and that they were byte for byte duplicates of the originals. It's just really slow.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Ok "broken" may not be the right word, but it's close enough that it's unreasonable.
    Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:26 PM
  • I'm currently sitting through a restore of about 160gb of data. Currently sitting at nearly 48 hours to restore. Trickling in at ~850kb per second. Obviously the backup saved me but having to wait over 2 days to access the data is nearly...no wait IS pointless. I could have recreated the data by now. If i had of known a restore was going to take this long i wouldn't have used the technology and used something a little more this century....

    I will no longer be using windows home server to backup my data. Unless someone can advise what i'm doing wrong; and to tell me that its not designed to restore large volumes of data then my answer to you is "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!" If its not designed to restore large amounts of files why do they give you the option of backing up multi terrabyte disks. There should be a warning when you select more than 2gb that its going to take EXCESSIVE amounts of time to get back your data or not even bother.

    I'm happy to be told i'm doing something wrong....in fact more than happy to be told to just "tick a box" and it will speed up!

    WHS 2011 running 4x2tb raid 5 array

    1 gigabit to both server and client

    To say this is broken is an understatement...completely unusable..,. more like it.

    Monday, July 18, 2011 12:40 PM
  • I'm currently sitting through a restore of about 160gb of data. Currently sitting at nearly 48 hours to restore. Trickling in at ~850kb per second. Obviously the backup saved me but having to wait over 2 days to access the data is nearly...no wait IS pointless. I could have recreated the data by now. If i had of known a restore was going to take this long i wouldn't have used the technology and used something a little more this century....

    I will no longer be using windows home server to backup my data. Unless someone can advise what i'm doing wrong; and to tell me that its not designed to restore large volumes of data then my answer to you is "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!" If its not designed to restore large amounts of files why do they give you the option of backing up multi terrabyte disks. There should be a warning when you select more than 2gb that its going to take EXCESSIVE amounts of time to get back your data or not even bother.

    I'm happy to be told i'm doing something wrong....in fact more than happy to be told to just "tick a box" and it will speed up!

    WHS 2011 running 4x2tb raid 5 array

    1 gigabit to both server and client

    To say this is broken is an understatement...completely unusable..,. more like it.

    I 100% agree with you. Saying "well you can just restore a complete disk" is NOT a solution. What happens if the backup drive was a 2 TB drive, it died, and I only had a 500 G drive to restore to, or what if I don't have ANY extra drives to simply erase to do a complete restore?! The wizard in V1 of Home Server saved my bacon several times and honestly works pretty darn close to perfect. Something is FUNDAMENTALLY broken (yes, I said broken) in Home Server 2011.
    Monday, July 18, 2011 2:58 PM
  • Anyone has any progress on this?
    Tuesday, August 2, 2011 12:20 PM
  • Performance issue may impacted by many facts, like network, CPU, disk I/O. Could you open a connect bug http://connect.microsoft.com/ and using the log collector https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=36880 to gather the logs for invesitgation.

    Thanks.

    Monday, August 8, 2011 3:20 AM
  • Performance issue may impacted by many facts, like network, CPU, disk I/O. Could you open a connect bug http://connect.microsoft.com/ and using the log collector https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=36880 to gather the logs for invesitgation.

    Thanks.


    I did this several weeks ago. I have Storage Server Essentials installed, so it's bugged there:

    http://connect.microsoft.com/site1062/feedback/details/679205/single-file-restore-performance-is-very-poor


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Monday, August 8, 2011 1:14 PM
  • We are all aware that performance issues may be impacted by many problems. The issue here isn't full restore, it's using the files restore wizard that is at issue. WHS V1 NEVER had this problem, V2 is so slow it's a joke. I have tried many MANY different platforms of hardware including full system swaps (including AMD and Intel), dedicated Intel NICs, Dual-Core and Quad Core AMD and Intel configs, hard drives, network switches, etc. You cannot tell me for one minute that it's normal for files to copy at KILOBYTES a second with NEW hardware and GIG ethernet connections. It's really a joke...no wonder Microsoft lowered the price to $50...
    Monday, August 8, 2011 4:01 PM
  • I've just had occasion to restore 4GB worth of files and folders, and found the transfer rate to be around the 200 KB/s mark. This strikes me as ludicrously slow. I see that Ken has reported this issue on the Storage Server Essentials forum on Connect. Not being a member of that group, I can't go and see how Microsoft have responded, or vote up the issue.

    However, I see that this issue has been reported on the WHS forum here: https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/feedback/details/583046/slow-file-transfer-when-using-the-restore-file-feature

    I note that Microsoft have closed the issue as "won't fix". Sigh.

    Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:12 PM
  • Well, that sucks.

    It's a brand new product! why won't it be fixed? It's not exactly a MINOR issue..... 

    BUY Microsoft products they say...Well, I did - where is the support?!

    Saturday, October 22, 2011 1:25 PM
  • I created the original post.  Since then I have found (at least at my home) this problem only affects restores to a XP client PC.  If I restore the same file using a Windows 7 client the restore works at a reasonable speed. 


    Texas
    Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:00 PM
  • I created the original post.  Since then I have found (at least at my home) this problem only affects restores to a XP client PC.  If I restore the same file using a Windows 7 client the restore works at a reasonable speed. 


    Texas

    That's not true nor accurate, at least in my experience. I haven't had XP machines since Vista, and I haven't had Vista since Windows 7 came out. All my machines are x64 Windows 7 and they all are rediculously slow at selective file restoration. The only thing that goes at kinda normal speeds are full disk restores. This does work, but it takes a few hours to copy EVERYTHING to an external drive, just to get access to one file. Sad thing is, it's still faster than pulling just that file through the file restore wizard.
    Saturday, October 22, 2011 2:39 PM
  • Yes, I'm dumping Windows Home Server 2011 as soon as I can get some data off of it. Have 250 gigs of data I need to restore, and it has taken OVER TWO DAYS to get rid of the "preparing to copy" dialog box.

     

    This is just insane.

     

    WHS is a sad, broken product that should, frankly, be illegal to sell, as it does NOT do what it is intended to do: provide reliable backups.

    Friday, October 28, 2011 4:18 PM
  • I created the original post.  Since then I have found (at least at my home) this problem only affects restores to a XP client PC.  If I restore the same file using a Windows 7 client the restore works at a reasonable speed. 


    Texas

    Doesn't jive with my experience. I have only Win7 at this point. Restore is effectively useless.
    Friday, October 28, 2011 4:19 PM
  • We are all aware that performance issues may be impacted by many problems. The issue here isn't full restore, it's using the files restore wizard that is at issue. WHS V1 NEVER had this problem, V2 is so slow it's a joke. I have tried many MANY different platforms of hardware including full system swaps (including AMD and Intel), dedicated Intel NICs, Dual-Core and Quad Core AMD and Intel configs, hard drives, network switches, etc. You cannot tell me for one minute that it's normal for files to copy at KILOBYTES a second with NEW hardware and GIG ethernet connections. It's really a joke...no wonder Microsoft lowered the price to $50...

    MS should be offering refunds.
    Friday, October 28, 2011 4:21 PM
  • I'm currently sitting through a restore of about 160gb of data. Currently sitting at nearly 48 hours to restore. Trickling in at ~850kb per second. Obviously the backup saved me but having to wait over 2 days to access the data is nearly...no wait IS pointless. I could have recreated the data by now. If i had of known a restore was going to take this long i wouldn't have used the technology and used something a little more this century....

    I will no longer be using windows home server to backup my data. Unless someone can advise what i'm doing wrong; and to tell me that its not designed to restore large volumes of data then my answer to you is "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!" If its not designed to restore large amounts of files why do they give you the option of backing up multi terrabyte disks. There should be a warning when you select more than 2gb that its going to take EXCESSIVE amounts of time to get back your data or not even bother.

    I'm happy to be told i'm doing something wrong....in fact more than happy to be told to just "tick a box" and it will speed up!

    WHS 2011 running 4x2tb raid 5 array

    1 gigabit to both server and client

    To say this is broken is an understatement...completely unusable..,. more like it.


    Completely accurate.
    Friday, October 28, 2011 4:22 PM
  • I set my server to restore a mere 40gb of data and 9 hours later the blue bar still has not reached half way....... This is a drive to drive restore within the same box no network involved.

    I will not make this mistake again.

    This can not be correct if I was using this as a media server with vast quantities of data I would be retired by the time it finishes. I wonder how many others are experiencing this same issue....

    Sunday, November 13, 2011 3:19 PM
  • Agreed with all of the above.  Large number of single files is beyond slow... if it went any slower, it would be going the other direction.  Can't restore the whole data drive if there's a size mismatch.  Can't restore the C: drive from the GUI.  Restore GUI has no 'Back' button.  Resizing the VHD that WHS is running on isn't picked up by WHS, so I have to create a new VHD at max size and restore to that. Restoring the C and D drives to the new max (2040) sized VHD should work...

     

    So far, so good.  C: is restored to the new VHD, started restoring D:... then, make that the new boot VHD and all should be back.

     

    In the time I've spent on this, I could have built a faster Linux box on the same hardware that does everything WHS claims to do, do it faster, and with more functionality.

    Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:58 PM
  • I have one recent datapoint to share.

    I restored 12GB (consisting of about 1800 files) in 2 hours over a Gigabit connection to a Windows 7 x64 client pc.  This one test was from a Windows Home Server 2011 backup running in an ESXi 5.0 virtual machine.

    Slower than my WHSv1 system, and I am disappointed, but it's not a showstopper for me, I usually wind up doing full restores anyway when things go wrong, and the speed of those bare-metal restores seems to be about the same as WHSv1 restores.

    At least my results don't seem to be as terrible as others are getting (skyline4011's reports above look like 3GB/hr, I'm at about 6GB/hr).  The virtual machine showed very little CPU or Network activity during the restore, so no apparent bottleneck there.

    It's hard to draw much of any conclusions after sifting through this long thread, but it feels like there are likely some factors at play here that we haven't yet figured out.





    • Edited by tinkererguy Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:20 AM
    Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:12 AM
  • Any progress on this issue? Its 2012 already, so this issue is now close to half a year old!?

    I am attempting to restore a bunch of files from a backup; approx 160 GB of files. The current estimate is 48 hours at around 2,13 MB/second. The full backup is around 1,6 TB and I don't have an extra array or disk to which I can do a full restore. :-(

    I have no idea if the restore will even finish - in my experience WHS will nuke the connection and be unable to continue the restore when the DHCP lease is renewed (because WHS is unable to reconnect and continue operation if it is interrupted during a DHCP renew operation). I have a 24 hour lease time, so unless I stop the restore now, reconfigure my DHCP to at least 48 hour leases and restart the whole procedure, it will probably all be a waste of time.

    Why has it been half a year, and this issue has not been fixed? The core reason for having a WHS is storage and backup. Storage functionality was crippled with the removal of DE, and backup/restore is disappointing to say the least.

    And don't even get me started on the missing updates for OSX - I still can't configure Time Machine backups because MS hasn't updated the necessary protocols (unlike virtually every NAS vendor on the planet).

    I am a MS partner, and a good-behaving little MS-soldier in my everyday business life. Seeing how WHS is treated as a product, and the blatant disregard for the customers who purchased it, is not something that makes me feel honest and truthful when I tout the wonders of MS technology to my clients and partners.

    Is the product dead? Should I just downgrade back to WHS1 and move on with my life?

    What is going on ??? 

    Thursday, January 5, 2012 1:03 AM
  • P.S. Just in case anybody wonders:
    Yes, I am running a wired gigabit network.
    No, the Server is not doing anything else at the moment.
    No, the client is not doing anything else at the moment.
    No, network utilization is not an issue. It is around 2% on the client and 13% on the server.
    No, CPU utilization on the client is not an issue. It is around 7% on one core, 0% on the three remaining cores.
    No, CPU utilization on the server is not an issue. It is around 9% on all four cores, with spikes to around 23%.
    No, RAM is not an issue either. The server reports 80% physical memory used with 119 MB still free.
    Yes, the server feels quite responsive to operate. Except for the restore obviously. 

    Thursday, January 5, 2012 1:15 AM
  • Jesper,

     

    Following the link provided in one of the replies shows MS is not going to fix this as its suposed to be slow.  The answer is that its reading from a VHD/files from a DB so is slower then running from the native disk.  I would ask if anyone has had this issue moving the server folders from one drive to another.  It could just be me but moving the same folder from one drive to another drive that I am trying to restore from runs at average os 2.2 megs a second.  This is the same speed I get trying to restore the files to another drive.  I can copy the same files from the server to another machine at about 65megs a second then copy those same files back to the server at about 25 megs a seconds.  But restoring and moving folders are stuck at 2.2 megs a seconds?  I also have looked at the cpu and ram numbers during the said operations and using taskmgr and resource monitor my cpu never gets over 12% or 100% of one cpu(have a xeon 1230 with 8meg cache and only one cpu is ever used) disk reads and writes for both operations are between 65megs a second and 0bytes per second.  I really liked the anser though and MS said they would look into IF they could find some time to optimize the code.

    Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:55 AM
  • Here is the link Geoffc1 posted from above:

     

    https://connecdt.microsoft.com/windowshomeserver/feedback/details/583046/slow-file-transfer-when-using-the-restore-file-feature

    and for those without a conect I would post the actual wording but dont really know if im allowed to.  It is marked though as closed with not going to fix.

    Ron

    Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:16 AM
  • Re:  "Is the product dead? Should I just downgrade back to WHS1 and move on with my life?"

    Yes.  I went back to v1 on my production box.  I still have 2011 on a test box, but I rely on v1 for everyday operations.

    Hopefully, there will be a "next version" and all the difficulties with WHS 2011 will be resolved, but for now, I'm on v1.  I'm cautiously optimistic about the future version, but...


    ____________

    BullDawg
    In God We Trust
    ____________
    <Jesper Sommer> wrote in message news:6ce712aa-2f43-4d9d-8aee-b657ea67dc3d@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    Any progress on this issue? Its 2012 already, so this issue is now close to half a year old!?

    I am attempting to restore a bunch of files from a backup; approx 160 GB of files. The current estimate is 48 hours at around 2,13 MB/second. The full backup is around 1,6 TB and I don't have an extra array or disk to which I can do a full restore. :-(

    I have no idea if the restore will even finish - in my experience WHS will nuke the connection and be unable to continue the restore when the DHCP lease is renewed (because WHS is unable to reconnect and continue operation if it is interrupted during a DHCP renew operation). I have a 24 hour lease time, so unless I stop the restore now, reconfigure my DHCP to at least 48 hour leases and restart the whole procedure, it will probably all be a waste of time.

    Why has it been half a year, and this issue has not been fixed? The core reason for having a WHS is storage and backup. Storage functionality was crippled with the removal of DE, and backup/restore is disappointing to say the least.

    And don't even get me started on the missing updates for OSX - I still can't configure Time Machine backups because MS hasn't updated the necessary protocols (unlike virtually every NAS vendor on the planet).

    I am a MS partner, and a good-behaving little MS-soldier in my everyday business life. Seeing how WHS is treated as a product, and the blatant disregard for the customers who purchased it, is not something that makes me feel honest and truthful when I tout the wonders of MS technology to my clients and partners.

    Is the product dead? Should I just downgrade back to WHS1 and move on with my life?

    What is going on ???


    BullDawg
    Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:21 AM
  • Corrected Link

    https://connect.microsoft.com/windowshomeserver/feedback/details/583046/slow-file-transfer-when-using-the-restore-file-feature

    Original has Connect spelled with a "d"  Connecdt.


    ____________

    BullDawg
    In God We Trust
    ____________
    <forcedfedbug> wrote in message news:612cb688-f3cd-4958-ba17-92ed0ca8e31d@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    Here is the link Geoffc1 posted from above:



    https://connecdt.microsoft.com/windowshomeserver/feedback/details/583046/slow-file-transfer-when-using-the-restore-file-feature

    and for those without a conect I would post the actual wording but dont really know if im allowed to. It is marked though as closed with not going to fix.

    Ron


    BullDawg
    Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:42 AM
  • thanks for fixing it as I was typing it from an rdp session I could not copy paste it.  its really too late for me to be up and typing is a bit off now.

     

    Ron

    Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:51 AM
  • I to have experienced this issue..  I am a long time user and beta guy since whs1..  I have a gigabit network, fast drives, sata 0 on my gaming pc.  When i transfer files to and from shares I get a blistering 75-110 MB/sec speed.  But when I restore a single 2gb file from server using the restore program (wizard or single file), i get under 3 MB/sec..   While whs 1 was slow during restores, whs 2011 is REALLY slow.  Kind of annoying.  Once hard drives go cheaper, since most pc's have raid controllers, I might just switch all my pc's to mirrored and only use whs 2011 for internet/streaming machine..
    Friday, January 6, 2012 2:49 AM
  • Thanks Forcefedbug, for

    Following the link provided in one of the replies shows MS is not going to fix this as its suposed to be slow.  The answer is that its reading from a VHD/files from a DB so is slower then running from the native disk.

     I am not sure I understand your "supposed to be slow" comment. Unless the performance has been deliberately reduced, in order to cripple WHS compared to more "enterprise"-like products, then it stands to reason that a piece of code would utilize all resources available on a machine.

    Yet, what we are seeing here is slow performance even while...

    • Disk I/O is not an issue. Queue length is less than 20% of acceptable limits (approx 0.18)
    • Disk read capacity is less than 10% of the theoretical maximum for the controller+disk I have
    • Disk read capacity is less than one third of what I can achieve when doing a local benchmark
    • CPU load is not an issue. The average load is around 10%
    • Memory is not an issue. I have about 119 MB physical memory unused; and most of the actually used memory seems to be used for normal file caching.
    • Network capacity is not an issue. It is a gigabit network, and reported utilization is approx 10%.

    In conclusion I can really only think of two reasons for a chunk of code to perform like this.

    Either it is deliberate - in which case some manager should be kicked in the *** and we as customers should punish the vendor by not buying their products.

    Or it is unintentional behavior due to _extremely_ poorly written code which is unable to utilize even a single physical resource to its maximum.

    In any case, the performance is so incredibly poor that this can only be described as a serious flaw in the product - no matter what the actual reason for the issue is. Asking customers to accept literally more than 48 hours for a partial restore is foolish to say the least. Some might even call it "arrogant" or a blatant disregard for customer feedback.

    Yes. Of course streaming data from a backup database will be slower. We all understand that. But not to the tune of 48 hours per restore, on modern hardware which is not even being properly utilized.

    - Jesper

     

     

    Monday, January 9, 2012 11:43 AM
  • I don't recall that restoring files and folders from the server to a client PC was as horrendously slow in WHS v1 as it clearly is in WHS 2011.

    Yet, on the other hand, nothing has changed in the functionality of the restore process, so I would have thought that the same code could have been used in WHS 2011. Still, since there is a clear drop in performance of the File and Folders Restore function in WHS 2011 over WHS v1, then it appears likely that it is re-written code. I doubt that it has been deliberately crippled (I don't like to rush to assign to Malice that which can be explained by simple Incompetence).

    Whatever the truth is, it seems clear that Microsoft have no intention to fix it, so I'm afraid we're stuck with it. Roll on Windows 8, when I can drop this less-than-stellar mess called WHS 2011.

    Monday, January 9, 2012 12:03 PM
  • Whatever the truth is, it seems clear that Microsoft have no intention to fix it, so I'm afraid we're stuck with it. Roll on Windows 8, when I can drop this less-than-stellar mess called WHS 2011.

    Can we really conclude that based on a single posting?

    What if we re-opened the issue by simply re-submitting it?

     

    - Jesper

    Monday, January 9, 2012 12:41 PM
  • What if we re-opened the issue by simply re-submitting it?

    You're welcome to try, of course, but I see from looking at the Connect Feedback that this issue has been raised on two separate occasions, and both times Microsoft have closed it. Perhaps third time lucky? 

    Oh, and I think Ken Warren also reported it in the Storage Essentials Forum. Not being a member of that, I don't know whether that is still active.

    • Edited by Geoffc1 Monday, January 9, 2012 12:56 PM
    Monday, January 9, 2012 12:54 PM
  • I agree totally.  Reading it MS looked at the logs for a few days from the customer that reported and came to the findings of not going to fix it.  A to the post that said "Some might even call it "arrogant""  I would agree as well.  However this is playing out a lot like the DE issues that RTM had when v1 was released and MS once they understood the issue resolved them nicely I would say.  So if people continue to bring up the issue they may still "fix" it in a later version.  The Connect link only shows14 people could repro this when I reviewed it.  How much "work" does anyone think MS will do for an issue that 14 people think is a problem?

     

    Ron

    Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:46 PM
  • 17 as of now.
    Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:47 PM
  • 15 GB restore. Its going to take over 24 hours. I want my money back.
    Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:33 AM
  • I would agree, absolutely pitiful compared to WHS v1.

    Same scenario for me, 12GB took nearly 20 hours to restore.

    Not network or anything else since I just copied all the 12GB that I had restored from the client back to a server share and it took a few minutes.

    And 10-15GB is NOT a large amount these days. For some photographers I know that is a days shoot if they have really got into the groove.

    I had a quick look at the SBS Essentials forum but didn't notice anyone logging similar problems, so does anyone know if it also affects business grade products?

    Thanks

    Neill

    Thursday, June 7, 2012 7:07 PM
  • Well, I see that this issue is addressed in the beta of Update Rollup 3 for WHS 2011. Microsoft states that:  "The performance should be 2 times better on average, depends on how large the file is and how many the files are".
    Friday, June 8, 2012 10:25 AM
  • Hmm.

    I think performance needs to be a whole order of magnitude better before I'd recommend WHS 2011 to anyone else now.

    2 times faster would still take 10 hours to 12 GB's for me. Completely unacceptable. 

    Friday, June 8, 2012 3:25 PM
  • I'm trying to restore 145GB of music files and it has been several days.  WHS is a joke!
    Monday, July 16, 2012 12:48 PM
  • I'm trying to restore 145GB of music files and it has been several days.  WHS is a joke!
    How are you trying to do this? Are you restoring a disk image, or did you "drag and drop" from an explorer window opened on one of your backups? The latter (usually referred to as single file restore) isn't really intended for large volumes of data, and is extremely slow as you've noted. Restoring an entire disk image is normally significantly faster.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    Monday, July 16, 2012 2:14 PM
  •  The latter (usually referred to as single file restore) isn't really intended for large volumes of data, and is extremely slow as you've noted. Restoring an entire disk image is normally significantly faster.

    When it works.  Thank god I partitioned my machine into two - one partition for the OS, and one partition for my games.  I was able to restore the C: drive with the OS and my base applications with no issue - and it consumed a healthy 40% or so of my gigabit LAN (CAT 5e installed to spec as only an anal rentive geek working on his own time can do :) ).  However the whole disk restore repeatedly fails when trying to restor my D: drive with the games.

    "No problem" I thought; "I'll just use the restore wizard" - ha!  First, it's rediculously slow as MANY others have found out the hard way :(  Second, it barfs on any file over a gigabyte.  It will chug along, but it seems after a fixed period of time to die - I may start restoring individual files and timing them to see if there is a pattern - it sure feels like it!  I have several games like Diablo III that have large files - sure, I could download everything again but that seems like a waste since it should be, theoretically, sitting in my backup!


    I'm pretty sure these large files are whats killing the full drive restore, but you could never tell from the completely unhelpful logging the full machine restore boot setup provides :p

    Ugh - I can see why MS abandonded WHS.  Obviously they don't want to follow through on it.  Although it is a little disturbing in that Storage Server uses the same machien backup and you've reported the same issue :(  I guess I will have to look to DPM for clients, or third party software - pity, the workstation backup in WHS/WSS could solve so may issues.  Sigh...


    • Edited by E Eskam Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:05 PM
    Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:36 PM
  • If it is specifik files, no need to use the restore wizard. Just open the mounted drive and copy and paste through Windows Explorer.

    http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whs2011/thread/83126b61-5bce-4901-abb6-3b6f0f71a15a

    While still dog slow, at least I am able to access the Z: drive and copy off the really big files that the restore wizard was flat out choking on.  I'm using robocopy in recovery mode (/zb) - hopefully if the restore session does tank (which often causes my WHS to reboot - forgot to mention that little nicety too) I won't have to start the file all over - it will pick up from whence it was interrupted...  I'm crossing my fingers that I don't have to test it...

    Got my first over a gigabyte file off - it's now chugging away on the 2.2 gibabyte ClientData.mpq for Diablo III...
    • Edited by E Eskam Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:02 PM
    Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:02 PM
  • I agree with those who say Microsoft should stop selling this product and/or offer refunds.

    http://www.jaydougherty.com/blog/windows-home-server-2011-buyer-beware_416.html

    Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:42 PM