Latest Development FOG
-
I don’t see any difference, but i use a war machine as server. it’s possible, it’s only on small configuration ?
-
[quote=“TheKoR, post: 47144, member: 24285”]I don’t see any difference, but i use a war machine as server. it’s possible, it’s only on small configuration ?[/quote]
the performance increase is dependent on the specs of the computer you are imaging. the biggest performance boost will be seen with multi-core computers with SSD drives.
-
I saw a difference just in upload from a Dell Precision M4800 with a standard 2.5" HDD, running an i7 and 16GB of RAM. Download will be tested later on a crappy machine.
-
I’m seeing significant increases in deployment speeds. Well done and thank you.
-
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. -
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 errorAny ideas
-
Hi again
I have updated to latest 3380 version and same thing happens. Is anybody else has the same problem
Thanks
-
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.
-
Love the speed increase. Download speeds went from 4gb/min to 8gb/min.
-
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. -
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]
-
[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].
-
Hi
I have tested with 3347 in a different server and it is doing the same thing
-
You should try again with svn 3400+. Changes were made to partition handling.
-
I have tried with svn 3407 and same thing happens.
Does anyone else experienced the same problem. -
[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?
-
REV 3412 : loose of download speed
-
@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?
-
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 !
-
@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_browserI have not made a change to the init’s since: SVN 3399
