Udp-Sender: half-duplex?
-
Is there a reason why FOG uses only half-duplex? In my environment full-duplex performes better
-
How are you able to tell that itâs running at half-duplex?
-
[quote=âKevin, post: 1653, member: 3â]How are you able to tell that itâs running at half-duplex?[/quote]
See MulticastTask.class.php:
[PHP]$cmd = âgunzip -c ââ . $this->getImagePath() . ââ | " . UPDSENDERPATH . " --min-receivers " . $this->getClientCount() . " --portbase " . $this->getPortBase() . " " . $interface . " $wait --half-duplex --ttl 32 --nokbdâ;
[/PHP][B]âhalf-duplex[/B]
-
Ah, never noticed that :), but who knows, this might be changed in version .33. However, the changes in the new version arenât very well known. EXT4 support, Developer Tools etc, so time will tell if it changes
-
[quote=âKevin, post: 1655, member: 3â]Ah, never noticed that :), but who knows, this might be changed in version .33. However, the changes in the new version arenât very well known. EXT4 support, Developer Tools etc, so time will tell if it changes :)[/quote]
half-duplex is still there in svn trunk
-
I could be wrong, but I think that was an attempt to make sure FOG would work with complex networks that might include half-duplex segments. If it was set to full-duplex and you tried to run across a half-duplex segment youâll get duplex mismatch errors.
-
[quote=âBryceZ, post: 1682, member: 2â]I could be wrong, but I think that was an attempt to make sure FOG would work with complex networks that might include half-duplex segments. If it was set to full-duplex and you tried to run across a half-duplex segment youâll get duplex mismatch errors.[/quote]
ok, than it would be great to have that configurable.
btw: who has networks which are half-duplex anymore? Iâm currently thinking about attaching my fogserver with 10 GbEâŠ
-
The problem with making that configurable is that itâs set in the boot image, which would need to be built for it. There are methods that could be used to pass this setting along from the web server to the boot image, but I donât think itâs been considered a priority, and that would be a non-trivial change.
As for the half-duplex networks⊠there are some older network printers are statically set to half-duplex, and unfortunately not all businesses provide sufficient IT budgets for replacing devices that arenât âbrokenâ.
I would suggest that you make a feature request for the change⊠unfortunately there is no dedicated feature request tool currently in use, so your best bet is to just make a thread in the Developer forum with Feature Request in the title. Or if youâre comfortable attempting to write the feature yourself, pull down the latest SVN and go for it, and pass it on to the developers once youâre done so they can work with you on getting it into the next version.
-
[quote=âBryceZ, post: 1684, member: 2â]The problem with making that configurable is that itâs set in the boot image, which would need to be built for it. There are methods that could be used to pass this setting along from the web server to the boot image, but I donât think itâs been considered a priority, and that would be a non-trivial change.[/quote]
ok, I understand thatâŠ
[quote=âBryceZ, post: 1684, member: 2â]
As for the half-duplex networks⊠there are some older network printers are statically set to half-duplex, and unfortunately not all businesses provide sufficient IT budgets for replacing devices that arenât âbrokenâ.[/quote]we are talking about multicast
Every printer will surely slow down the transfer if igmp isnât used etc.
The question was why anyone is using hubs and not switches.[quote=âBryceZ, post: 1684, member: 2â]I would suggest that you make a feature request for the change⊠[âŠ][/quote]
or I will keep patching it by hand every release
-
How much better does multicast perform after this change?
-
[quote=âfalko, post: 1690, member: 48â]How much better does multicast perform after this change?[/quote]
mmh, itâs quite a while ago that I tested it - donât know any numbers anymore but it was enough to say that I will patch the files after each release again
I canât test it currently because weâve upgraded our network and now the server and the clients are the bottleneck (5 GiB/min for Multicast and full 1 Gbit/s for NFS - with decompressing on the client).
-
haha must have been good enough then, so all i have to change is [COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#dd0000]âhalf-duplex [COLOR=#000000]to[/COLOR] --full-duplex [COLOR=#000000]?[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
i may just give that a test, cheers
-
is it really as simple as changing --half-duplex to --full-duplex?
-
So another question I have, for unicast, or imaging 1 device, is that set to half-duplex or is it set to full-duplex?
-
[quote=âfalko, post: 1711, member: 48â]haha must have been good enough then, so all i have to change is [COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#dd0000]âhalf-duplex [COLOR=#000000]to[/COLOR] --full-duplex [COLOR=#000000]?[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
i may just give that a test, cheers[/quote]
would be great to have the higher speed confirmed.
Setting it on the FOG-Server should be sufficient - itâs a udp-sender option and not udp-receiver[quote=âKevin, post: 1720, member: 3â]So another question I have, for unicast, or imaging 1 device, is that set to half-duplex or is it set to full-duplex?[/quote]
Unicast is handled over nfs, not udp-sender
-
Jtb, youâre right. I donât know why I thought that was in the boot image.
-
[quote=âfalko, post: 1711, member: 48â]haha must have been good enough then, so all i have to change is [COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#dd0000]âhalf-duplex [COLOR=#000000]to[/COLOR] --full-duplex [COLOR=#000000]?[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]
i may just give that a test, cheers[/quote]
Have you tested it yet?
-
no not yet, if I get time today I will post back my findings
-
just done a quick test, after editing the MulticastTask.class.php my multicast speed was at 580-590/mb min. When set back to half duplex the multicast was at the normal (for this network) 670mb /min
