• Recent
  • Unsolved
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
  • Recent
  • Unsolved
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Imaging computers at 2.6Gbps

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
General
8
40
9.2k
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O
    Obi-Jon @Bob Henderson
    last edited by Apr 6, 2017, 11:40 PM

    @Bob-Henderson That’s a really good idea. Gives me ideas for audio/video stuff that gets plugged in wrong every time they wax the floors…

    B 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 12:35 PM Reply Quote 0
    • B
      Bob Henderson @Obi-Jon
      last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 12:35 PM

      @Obi-Jon Thats how it started with us too. Labels didn’t work, cuz who can asked to read something written in big letters on each end…

      So we stock 10 colors now, and they all have a reason for them. We have a sign made up for the colors, and posted it in every room laminated.

      O 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 2:54 PM Reply Quote 0
      • Q
        Quazz Moderator
        last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 12:44 PM

        From my experience:

        Your FOG machine doesn’t need to be that fancy to accomplish this. It will be useful for concurrency and what not, of course, but I’ve had similar results with a 2nd generation i5, 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD (!!!) and 1gbps link

        The key to fast imaging is primarily down to the target device (assuming your imaging 1 device of course). Modern multi-core CPUs tend and faster storage solutions tend to get deployed to quite a bit faster.

        O 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 2:44 PM Reply Quote 0
        • O
          Obi-Jon @Quazz
          last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 2:44 PM

          @Quazz Yes, the target device does appear to be the deciding factor for deployment speed when imaging 1 device. That said, my old FOG box was running 0.32 (didn’t upgrade it due to some customization I had made to it) and was WAY slower than this, even with the same clients. The server was no slouch, even for 5 year old hardware, but the newer versions of FOG (partclone, etc) are making a big different too.

          From now on I think the bottleneck (if you can call it that) will be endpoint network bandwidth. We’re pretty much saturating 1Gbps links as this test shows, so going concurrent with 10Gbps link at the server is the next logical step. For me, 10Gbps is overkill since I have mostly 100Mbps endpoints with 1Gbps uplinks, but as I upgrade endpoint switches client speeds will improve a lot. Heck, with 100Mbps endpoints and SSD on the server I am thinking I can saturate 50-100 clients simultaneously at 100Mbps each. Can’t wait to try it.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • O
            Obi-Jon @Bob Henderson
            last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 2:54 PM

            @Bob-Henderson My color scheme for network cables has been based on length (5’ = white, 7’ blue, 10’ pink, 14’ yellow, etc). Maintenance disconnects everything every summer, waxes the floors or shampoos the carpets, then hooks everything up again, so the different colors on each row of computers is useful for figuring out which cables go where. Not sure I can do away with that for network cables, but I’ll definitely incorporate your idea for everything else.

            Good idea to post laminated signs too.

            B 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 4:27 PM Reply Quote 0
            • B
              Bob Henderson @Obi-Jon
              last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 4:27 PM

              @Obi-Jon

              Ah, yeah, I remember that game. We ended up doing a disconnect/reconnect system myself, to alleviate the issues.

              good thing there are more colors available, huh?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J
                Joe Schmitt Senior Developer
                last edited by Joe Schmitt Apr 7, 2017, 11:03 AM Apr 7, 2017, 5:03 PM

                @Obi-Jon @Junkhacker it would be interesting to see the speed difference using our new fog 2.0 transfer protocols / techniques when it’s more ready for testing. Generally speaking our new approach we’re working on is far more stable in transit (less packet loss), and capable of a much higher throughput / network efficiency.

                Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                B 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 5:55 PM Reply Quote 0
                • B
                  Bob Henderson @Joe Schmitt
                  last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 5:55 PM

                  @Joe-Schmitt Any documentation or such available for this? I’m curious about how you’re doing it from a technical perspective.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J
                    Joe Schmitt Senior Developer
                    last edited by Joe Schmitt Apr 7, 2017, 12:45 PM Apr 7, 2017, 6:44 PM

                    @Bob-Henderson there’s really 2 factors going into it (keep in mind this is a very simplified / high level overview of what we’re doing). First is the removal of NFS (it’s still an image storage option if you want, but not how FOS reads the images now). The server is now the one responsible for streaming an image to the client, this means we can use protocols such as http/2 streams, SPDY, on-the-fly packet compression, so on.

                    Secondly is making the server and client more intelligent (giving it a basic ai of sorts). FOS will basically be running a custom build of the linux FOG client to give us access to our existing framework, and real-time server communication. This means the server / client can automatically take care of throttling on congested networks and on-the-fly transferring which server (assuming you have a multi server setup) FOS is receiving the image from incase of high workload, or if a more optimal server frees up.

                    TL;DR By making FOS smarter, and upgrading our transport protocols.

                    Please help us build the FOG community with everyone involved. It's not just about coding - way more we need people to test things, update documentation and most importantly work on uniting the community of people enjoying and working on FOG! Get in contact with me (chat bubble in the top right corner) if you want to join in.

                    B 1 Reply Last reply Apr 7, 2017, 8:47 PM Reply Quote 0
                    • B
                      Bob Henderson @Joe Schmitt
                      last edited by Apr 7, 2017, 8:47 PM

                      @Joe-Schmitt Just dropping from NFS over to HTTP/SPDY/etc is huge.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • 1
                      • 2
                      • 2 / 2
                      2 / 2
                      • First post
                        40/40
                        Last post

                      223

                      Online

                      12.0k

                      Users

                      17.3k

                      Topics

                      155.2k

                      Posts
                      Copyright © 2012-2024 FOG Project