Multicast very slow
-
For information i’ve got these kinds of logs :
http://plegrand1.free.fr/multicast.log.udpcast.6unicast works fine
-
Well the first thing I see here is that your clients are on 100MB links. So that will limit your transfer rates to 12MB/s maximum (all traffic).
Once the network settles down you are getting 25MB/s transfer rate is very good. Also the slowest computer in the multicast will be the maximum speed of your multicast.
So I would ask you in your network design. What is the average unicast transfer rate when you image one computer (direct download not multicast)? Then send a multicast image to that same 1 computer. Is there a large difference?
-
@george1421
unicast : 30minutes for 14 Computers
multicast : 24hours for the same computers -
@plegrand said in Multicast very slow:
@george1421
unicast : 30minutes for 14 Computers
multicast : 24hours for the same computersSorry I was not clear in my request. I only want information on 1 computer (the same computer) One test via unicast and the second test via multicast. I want to compare the speeds between unicast and multicast on the same computer.
To me you have too many variables in your environment. We need to understand the basics first.
-
@george1421 How can i make multicast on 1 computer? I can’t see this option
-
-
@george1421 Sorry but where is this “Start Multicast session” ?
-
@george1421
Image menu
Multicast Image
Start Multicast Session -
With only one computer it seams to works fine.
Unicast
file:///home/pascal/Bureau/unicast.jpgMulticast
file:///home/pascal/Bureau/multicast.jpg -
@plegrand OK very good. This tells us that your network between the fog server and the target computer is good. You are getting ~28MB/s transfer rate. That’s a bit of a lie because your 100MB/s network can only transfer 12MB/s. The 20MB/s is the rate at which partclone can expand the image onto the disk of the target computer. But if you can’t feed partclone fast enough that rate will drop off quickly. If you are getting an expansion rate of the image faster than the network speeds your network rate is good.
Now can you make the same test with a computer located on the switch far away from the FOG server. In your drawing it would be the switch I want to test on the left of the drawing. This test will be the full network path between the fog server and the target PC.
One question I didn’t ask, how many target computers are in your multicast session?
-
@george1421
To answer to your last question it was a session with 15 target computer and theses target computer was very near the fog server, on my drawing it’s the swith just below the fog server -
@plegrand Well that makes me think a little differently if they are that near to your fog server.
Ok lets do a new test for multicast. Lets test 2 computers and then 3 computers. Now these computers must be the same model as the one done in your first test. We need to remove the variable of different models in this test.
What I expect to see for 2 computers is about the same speed as 1 computer in the multicast. For 3 computers slightly less than 2 computers. In my mind I question at what point do we go from an acceptable level of speed to bad.
I can tell you with unicasting on a pure 1GbE network you can fill up a 1GbE link with 3 simultaneous unicast deployments of FOG with modern target computers. That is a concern for the link to the fog server and switch to switch links mainly. Under a multicast you should get just slightly less than unicast speeds.
-
@plegrand Also I just looked into these switching thinking they were old. They are not (at least performance wise) they are better capacity than Cisco small business switch SG300.
So I have to ask you why are you running 100MB/s to the desktops?
Do you have the capabilities to run a second network wire from the switch where the fog server is to the switch where the target computers are? (I’ll explain more if you can).
-
@george1421
With a target computer far from the fog server it seems to works also
file:///home/pascal/Bureau/multicast-205.jpg -
@george1421
I’m not sure to well understand
Actually my diagram is not “really” true.
The fog server is on a GB port
All desktop clients are on 100 M ports
I cant do anything else, no enough GB ports -
@george1421 For these tests for the moment i’ve no time enough but i’ll do these tests in a near futur
-
@george1421 said in Multicast very slow:
Do you have the capabilities to run a second network wire from the switch where the fog server is to the switch where the target computers are? (I’ll explain more if you can).
It’s quiet already the case
The switch (OS6250) where are connected all my target computers is just below the switch where the fog server is (OS6450).
And directly connected by a 1GB link
Then, only target computers are on a 100MB link -
@plegrand said in Multicast very slow:
I cant do anything else, no enough GB ports
When I looked up the switch configuration it said that all ports are 10/100/1000 rated. Maybe I did not understand.
The the OS6250 switch is only 100Mb/s then I understand why you have 100MB/s to the desktop.
OK on delaying the test. There is a bottleneck someplace we just need to find it.
-
@george1421
The 6450 has all his ports 10/100/1000
not the 6250 only the uplink ports are on 1000 -
@george1421 said in Multicast very slow:
Under a multicast you should get just slightly less than unicast speeds.
So what’s the multicast interest if it’s not faster, apart from not flooding the network?
I’m going to make some tests this morning with 2, 3, 4 target computers.
I will tell you the result
