Tableau IMager (TIM...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Tableau IMager (TIM)

9 Posts
6 Users
0 Reactions
1,997 Views
(@chrism)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 97
Topic starter  

Anyone used this yet?

My first case yesterday of using it was on an old IDE drive so I saw no rapid improvements but I have yet to try it on a new SATA drive, has anyone noticed a faster image time than before?

Also one little downside of the program from what I can see if there is no option to name the image file, the default is IMAGE.dd/E01 etc and there is no way to change that. Am I just missing something or are other people noticing this as well?

Nice piece of software anyway - I do like the function to queue many drives for imaging, but I can't see that having much of an bonus effect unless you have 10 eSATA ports and as many writeblockers to go with them!


   
Quote
(@funkygeek)
Active Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 6
 

Hi, you are right with the default name. I also cannot find a way to change this.

I performed some initial testing on a SATA disk with just over 8GB in data. I created an image using the same hardware and cables on the same machine using FTK Imager and Tableau Imager. The Tableau Imager was noticeable faster than FTK Imager, however, you cannot preview the files as you can with FTK Imager.

I will perform some more testing on disks with more data and imform you of the results.


   
ReplyQuote
ballydehob
(@ballydehob)
Active Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 14
 

I gave it a test run this week. It operated well, but I didn't see much in the way of advantages. It seems a bit light on features at this point. Hopefully Tableau will develop this further. On a 128 MB USB test device, imaging took 6 minutes (although initially it said 40 minutes for expected time). By comparison, another imager also did the same device in 6 minutes. To begin a list of features I recommend Tableau add is an ability to take a "before" MD5 hash as well as an "after" hash. Others?

Steve Devlin
Boston, MA


   
ReplyQuote
(@chrism)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 97
Topic starter  

Stats I have found imaging a 1TB 7200rpm Samsung 3.5inch

('average rate') - there values fluctuate a little.

54-57 MB/sec (3.3 GB/min) imaging time (RAW) on TIM.
42-45 MB/sec (~2.6 GB/min) imaging time (E01) on TIM. (no compression)

~54 MB/sec imaging time (RAW) on FTK Imager.
~54 MB/sec imaging time (E01) on FTK Imager. (no compression)

Tableau T35es write blocker with eSATA.
Intel Core Duo 3.00GHz 2.00GB RAM
Imaging onto an a 1TB internal drive.
MD5 hashing.

Anyone else find that TIM/FTK are almost exactly the same? Is there something I'm doing wrong by not using TIM's full power? When I imaging using TIM I get 4.5-5.0 GB/min for a few seconds before it levels off at 3.3 GB/min for the rest of the time.


   
ReplyQuote
(@chrism)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 97
Topic starter  

8GB USB disk

11.1 MB/sec imaging time (RAW) on TIM.
11.1 MB/sec imaging time (E01) on TIM. (no compression)

5.4 MB/sec imaging time (RAW) on FTK Imager.
5.4 MB/sec imaging time (E01) on FTK Imager. (no compression)

Tableau T8 writeblocker with Firewire 400.
Same computer specs as above.

It seems to me that TIM is much quicker with firewire imaging USB sticks


   
ReplyQuote
(@chrism)
Trusted Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 97
Topic starter  

Stats I have found imaging a 1TB 7200rpm Samsung 3.5inch with FIREWIRE 400

41 MB/sec imaging time (RAW) on TIM.
41 MB/sec imaging time (E01) on TIM. (no compression)

26 MB/sec imaging time (RAW) on FTK Imager.
26 MB/sec imaging time (E01) on FTK Imager. (no compression)

Tableau T35es write blocker with firewire 400.
Same computer as above.

Seems to me like TIM is quicker if firewire is your only way of connecting, whereas if you using eSATA there is no noticable difference. If anyone has any other stats on this I'd be happy to read them


   
ReplyQuote
(@jonathan)
Prominent Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 878
 

Is there something I'm doing wrong by not using TIM's full power?.

Not necessarily wrong, but perhaps you'd see higher speeds with a higher spec machine. It's possible the capability of both FTK and TIM are not being streched by the box they're working from.


   
ReplyQuote
(@patrick4n6)
Honorable Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 650
 

When I first saw this claim, I hypothesised that Tableau has added some kind of really light compression to their lower speed attachment methods. I know that at one point we did some testing with LZop and found really nice compression for extremely low processor overhead. Since for USB/Firewire the connection is the slow point, then compression of the data transfer there would yield the highest benefit. Since e-sata's link speed is higher than anything you'd expect to see from a rotational drive, I don't expect you'll see any benefit there.


   
ReplyQuote
kiashi
(@kiashi)
Trusted Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 99
 

Hello All,

I just wanted to share my experience with TIM so far. My colleague managed to successfully image two 250GB drives overnight without issue, however my experience was quite the opposite.

I ran TIM on a less than 3 month old HP Z800 workstation with 6GB of RAM running Win XP 64bit.

I was imaging an 80GB SATA drive using a T3u that I had just updated the firmware on. Firstly I imaged the drive with FTK Imager, with no problems I obtained an E01 image with best compression (9 in FTK).

When I proceeded to then image the same disk with TIM it ended up spontaneously rebooting my workstation. Once it started up again another try resulted in the workstation grinding to a complete halt at which point it would no longer respond to ctrl-alt-del and I had to do a hard reboot on it.

So in conclusion I will not be using TIM again until a new release comes out as it seems quite unstable to me. Not to mention the fact that I can't waste another day waiting for my internal RAID to check itself and recover from the spontaneous reboot.


   
ReplyQuote
Share: