Latest Development FOG

[Bill Rice]

I can tell you this as testing it to compare,
Lenovo M73 with a 500 Gig hd, mechanical, 7200RPM icore5 2.6ghz quad CPU, 8 Gig DDR3 ram and gig Ethernet connection to server.

Prior to updates, was imaging up to fog @ 500Meg/min to 1Gig/min Maxed out. This is a 70Gig usable partition.
Prior to updates, was pulling image from fog @ 1Gig/min to 1.8-9 Gig/min, Same config 70 Gig usable partition.

After updates - Same info/Same image/Same Config
Upload to Fog was 4-4.5 Gig/min
Download from Fog started @ 14Gig/min and trickled down to a steady 7.5Gig/min stayed there until it was completed.

Big Thanks to Junkhacker for identifying the compression and Tom Elliott for getting Multicore functional.
As always, Awesome collaboration to make Fog better.

[George]

Hi
After updating to latest edition 3377 i can not image a new disks that does not have partitions at all. I am getting a message Error could not stat device mklabel No such file or directory.
I have tried it to virtualbox and i am getting the same error

Any ideas

[George]

Hi again

I have updated to latest 3380 version and same thing happens. Is anybody else has the same problem

Thanks

[Tom Elliott]

George,

I am attempting to get FOG to initialize the disks for you, but I don’t know where/why it’s failing. It should be 100% fresh at that points as my setup makes it so it clears all partition tables, then creates a single partition, and now formats it if there are no found partitions on it. Maybe I screwed it up somewhere? I don’t know.

In the mean time, you can boot your system and make a temporary formatted partition. This will force the disk to be initialized and you should no longer have issues with FOG trying to image the device.

[Ben Warfield]

Love the speed increase. Download speeds went from 4gb/min to 8gb/min.

[George]

Hi Tom

Thanks for the fast answer
I have made a partirtition the whole disk and formated with ntfs. Now partclone starts, images the boot partition but it fails to image the second.

As i can see it fails to delete the partitions and partclone images only the first one.
I have made all tests with virtualbox.

[George]

Hi Tom

I am uploading a video capture from virtualbox so you can see what is happening exactly.

Thanks and sorry for my bad english

[url=“/_imported_xf_attachments/1/1989_Windows764.webm.zip?:”]Windows764.webm.zip[/url]

[Wayne Workman]

[quote=“Bill Rice, post: 47154, member: 927”]
Prior to updates - 1.8-9 Gig/min
After updates - 7.5Gig/min
[/quote]

[B]JUNKHACKER[/B] is [B]amazing[/B].

[George]

Hi

I have tested with 3347 in a different server and it is doing the same thing

[need2]

You should try again with svn 3400+. Changes were made to partition handling.

[George]

I have tried with svn 3407 and same thing happens.
Does anyone else experienced the same problem.

[Wayne Workman]

[quote=“George, post: 47495, member: 1565”]I have tried with svn 3407 and same thing happens.
Does anyone else experienced the same problem.[/quote]

Can you create a new thread with all pertaining details of your problem?

[TheKoR]

REV 3412 : loose of download speed

[Tom Elliott]

@TheKoR said:

REV 3412 : loose of download speed

We haven’t changed anything in the speed department. So if there’s a loss of speed in download/upload, maybe check the network or hardware within the machine?

[TheKoR]

All my test are done with the same machine (latitude d630) same place on my network.

Before junkhacker change i have 8/8.5 Go/min, with 3405 i have 9/10Go/min and with 3412 i have 6.5/Go/min

Edit : solved by reboot !

[Tom Elliott]

@TheKoR said:

All my test are done with the same machine (latitude d630) same place on my network.

Before junkhacker change i have 8/8.5 Go/min, with 3405 i have 9/10Go/min and with 3412 i have 6.5/Go/min

I realize that, but I still have not made any changes. If 3405 worked, and 3412 is slow, it’s something in your environment.

You can see the commits:
http://sourceforge.net/p/freeghost/code/commit_browser

I have not made a change to the init’s since: SVN 3399

[ch3i]

Hi,

I’ve tested the bandwith speed in SVN 3377 and 3412, for that image :

-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 512 mai 18 12:57 d1.mbr
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 mai 18 12:57 d1.original.swapuuids
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8620391 mai 18 12:57 d1p1.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40917364300 mai 18 13:16 d1p2.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3947741 mai 18 13:16 d1p3.img

In 3377 :

DL : 7.3G/Min (Avg)

In 3412:

DL : 7.4G/Min (Avg)

Regards,
Ch3i.

[Bill Rice]

@ch3i said:

Hi,

I’ve tested the bandwith speed in SVN 3377 and 3412, for that image :

-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 512 mai 18 12:57 d1.mbr
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 mai 18 12:57 d1.original.swapuuids
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8620391 mai 18 12:57 d1p1.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40917364300 mai 18 13:16 d1p2.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3947741 mai 18 13:16 d1p3.img

In 3377 :

DL : 7.3G/Min (Avg)

In 3412:

DL : 7.4G/Min (Avg)

Regards,
Ch3i.

As far as i know the speed increased prior to SVN 3377 (I think around 3374) and the speed you see appears to be full (again it depends on the hardware, memory, hdd and ethernet to server.) but your speeds look a lot better then the before for me… i was pulling images at 3-4Gig/min no I get about 7-7.5/gig min

[ch3i]

@Bill-Rice said:

@ch3i said:

Hi,

I’ve tested the bandwith speed in SVN 3377 and 3412, for that image :

-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 512 mai 18 12:57 d1.mbr
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 mai 18 12:57 d1.original.swapuuids
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8620391 mai 18 12:57 d1p1.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 40917364300 mai 18 13:16 d1p2.img
-rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3947741 mai 18 13:16 d1p3.img

In 3377 :

DL : 7.3G/Min (Avg)

In 3412:

DL : 7.4G/Min (Avg)

Regards,
Ch3i.

As far as i know the speed increased prior to SVN 3377 (I think around 3374) and the speed you see appears to be full (again it depends on the hardware, memory, hdd and ethernet to server.) but your speeds look a lot better then the before for me… i was pulling images at 3-4Gig/min no I get about 7-7.5/gig min

It was to check if I had the same problem than TheKoR

Regards,
Ch3i.

[George]

Hi

Thanks Tom for the fix everything is working as should be with the latest version.
Something else you don t need to apologies to anyone. You are doing a great job and everyone should be patient.

Again thanks everyone that have helped to make this project.