Fog 0.32 vs WDS (2008 R2)
first i want to apologize for my question because it not really fits in here.
I am in a project which belongs to my education.
I have to point out the better alternative. I like fog and it causes no license cost and does not need a Active Directory. I wonder if somebody have measured performance for multicast deploy. I think it is nearly the same ist that right?
FOG has some little advantages over WDS, like WOL (which does not work for me), wiping (which i dont need), being easier to make a moveable deployment server and hardware inventory. Until now i had no time to test the snapins and printer deployment.
Do you have some other hint about what could be a further advantage of fog?
It makes no sense to measure WDS virtually, because the virtual machines got ready at different times. That’s because multicast process deploys and the installation takes part “offline” so it is not like fog, that all machines get ready at the same time with multicast. Tomorrow i can test multicast performance but only with an 100 MBit switch.
For sure it can be said fog is quicker with 1 Gbit both in backup and deployment.
I am now analyzing how fog and WDS deploy :) Think most of you know already. Actually i am measuring the performance virtually and physically with 100 MBit and 1 Gbit with small and large partitions. It may be that WDS has a better performance with 100 MBit while compression at fog is off. I try to analyze at which speed (depending on hdd and LAN and processor) which is the better alternative and when it could be useful to turn compression in fog on. Can somebody add details. I hope to have enough time and a GBit switch to make an exact analysis. The virtual comparison is not really useful, because the hdd is written simultanous by two virtual machines and read by one…