FOG Server CPU Requirements
-
I am running a multicast image right now and it is super slow, <20MB/sec and declining. With the unicast with 2 computers imaging, I was getting about 6GB/sec each. I did a little Googling around it seems as if our very old, crappy Dell PowerConnect switches are probably causing the issue. I guess they can’t handle the “amount” of multicast traffic - no surprise there…
We should be getting Cisco switches soon, so I’ll have to test it with those and make sure they are configured to pass multicast traffic properly.
Thanks!
-
@ty900000 With multicast the speed of the slowest computer sets your maximum transfer rate. I can say that multicasting to 20 computers should just be slightly slower than a single unicast image.
I would have to question your unit of scale. I could understand 20MB/s and 6GB/min. At 6GB/s you would need faster than a 20GbE network.
-
Oh, you’re right! I meant <20MB/min for multicasting two machines and 6GB/min unicasting two machines. My bad!
-
@ty900000 wow that sux on the performance scale.
-
Which one sucks? The 20MB/min or the 6GB/min? Or both?
-
@ty900000 The 20MB a minute.
-
Ah, yeah. It was going to take over 13 hours to blow down a 17GB image. I think it’s the crappy L2 Dell switches can’t handle … much of anything. It’s a constant battle with them.
-
@ty900000 Are the switches you have capable to be “managed”.
-
Yeah, they can be managed. But, I can’t do much with them. Their documentation isn’t great and the are seriously lacking commands. I’m a CCNA, so I’m a little more used to Cisco-specific commands that do Cisco-specific things. These old PowerConnects either don’t have an equivalent or just have a very different and more difficult way of doing the same thing.
-
@ty900000 said in FOG Server CPU Requirements:
20MB/min
I would expect a single unicast image to deploy about 6GB/m on a typical solid network. 4 to 5GB/m for a multicast.
You are multicasting to devices on the same vlan as the fog server?
-
Cool! Yeah, I was hoping to see 4-5 GB/min. We don’t have VLANs. Not yet, at least. The Dell PowerConnect switches are old and we only use them as a L2 switch for now. They can be managed, but they lack a lot of commands and documentation. Cisco Catalysts should be coming next quarter, I hope.
-
@ty900000 If they’re used as “dummy” switches, maybe replacing them with simplified dummy switches (with GB if possible) would help improve things?
-
No, they’re not “dummy” switches. They are the whole entire network backbone, sadly. They’re so old when I unplugged one that hadn’t been turned off in years and plugged it back in, it was completely dead.
-
@george1421 said in FOG Server CPU Requirements:
I would expect a single unicast image to deploy about 6GB/m on a typical solid network.
is a typical network really that slow?
-
@Junkhacker Your network is fairly special man, yes that’s about average lol.
-
@Junkhacker said in FOG Server CPU Requirements:
@george1421 said in FOG Server CPU Requirements:
I would expect a single unicast image to deploy about 6GB/m on a typical solid network.
is a typical network really that slow?
Yes I still have network envy of your setup. But not everyone has all gold and chrome computers either.
-
@ty900000 I there any chance you could setup a “test” network switch to just the fog server and a few test systems to compare the multicast to unicast to. If you are multicasting across your campus you may have other underlying issues that mutlicasting is making worse (like a 100Mb link somewhere). At least using all on switch backbone you could get a better idea of speeds.
-
@george1421 i don’t think my setup is really that special. it’s a gigabit network with dell clients and a used Poweredge R510 we picked up cheap for the server (perc H700 raid controller with a 24 drive array, which is probably why i have the nice speed, tbh)
-
@Junkhacker It also doesn’t hurt that many of your “receiving” systems have SSD’s lol.
-
@Tom-Elliott true, forgot about that. we only deploy traditional hard drives in special cases now. we find it’s more effective for us to put in an SSD than a faster processor for our users.
point being, if someone had relatively small image storage requirements they could probably get as fast of results as i do by putting an SSD in their server.