• slider alt
  • F-Response Imager
  • F-Response v6 Image
  • F-Response Universal
  • F-Response Cloud Services - Now
" Thanks for F-Response - it's saved our bacon loads! "
Ching Liu, Control Risks

F-Response Speed Test Results

Nov/28/2011

Occasionally we get requests from potential customers to give them a "ballpark" assessment of the speed of F-Response during imaging or acquisition activities. Often it's difficult to provide much more than a range given the differences between imaging products, network layouts, and bandwidth. So last week before the holiday we decided to put together a simple F-Response speed test and see if we could provide a "best case" option for F-Response customers.

We chose a number of different imaging products, including both open source and commercial. In addition we looked at the differences in using Linux, Windows XP, and Windows 7 as your examiner machine, the results were very enlightening.


Without going into the specifics of each product, we found that all Windows based imaging products performed better on Windows 7. This is no surprise as the iSCSI sub system within Windows 7 is superior to Windows XP in many ways, however it was good to see that confirmed in our results.


In fact, the most interesting results of the speed test were that one product performed in some cases 2x faster than all others.


Windows 7 (Average of all similar speed imaging products) with Gigabit Ethernet


40-60 Gigabytes/hr


Windows 7, X-Ways Imager with Gigabit Ethernet


106 Gigabytes/hr


Now that's an amazing number, 106 Gigabytes/hr, easily more than 2x faster than some of the other tools tested in identical conditions.


It was certainly a compelling number and clearly something we wanted to share with you.


Thanks and Enjoy!


Warmest Regards,


M Shannon, Founder


F-Response


November 28, 2011

Back...

Support

  • More Support Options
  • Mission Guides

What is F-Response?

News & Blog

F-Response products are protected by one or more patents or patents-pending, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,899,882; 8,171,108; 9,037,630; and 9,148,418.