Dedupe storage - how to best bypass pigz packaging?
-
@george1421 I’m working a prototype init that will enable use without compression.
-
Prototype is up and appears to be working properly. With this new change it should theoretically be possible to use clonezilla images within fog, once files are named into fog formats. Same goes in reverse, fog images with uncompressed format should be able move into clonezilla provided the images are renamed to clonezilla naming standards.
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.
Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)
Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG
-
@Tom-Elliott Just so I’m clear, this feature is only available with the latest release of FOG (1.3.5.rc5)?
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!
-
@Tom-Elliott Thanks Tom! I will test out the funcs.sh change to see how the upload results change.
@george1421 Yes, a clonezilla image directly uploaded will dedupe (with no compression.) The file is chunked into pieces and deduped based on those chunks. The art is to match the dedupe chunk size with the data inside the image and to match the chunk boundaries between the algorithm and the incoming data.
-
@george1421 Correct. Really the working branch, it will be available for re-installs of rc5 but not in the GUI.
-
1.3.5 RC 6 has been released and should have this ‘uncompressed’ capability coded more properly for it.
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.
Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)
Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG
-
@Tom-Elliott Excitedly downloads new RC
-
sorry i didn’t see this thread earlier, but i have experimented with dedup of uncompressed fog images on a zfs filesystem to see if it was worth it. i saw far less gains than when using compression. but i really can’t say i’m highly experienced in dedup, so maybe i did something wrong. let us know how your experiments go
-
@Junkhacker I to am interested in seeing how the dedup rate compares to the same file compressed at a level 6. If for just information only. It would be interesting to know.
-
I think de-duplication from multiple images (like 10 images) would be much more suitable than the same 10 images with compression. But again, this means it will be seen when you are dealing with multiple images. For one or two images it’s probably not going to be worth the gain.
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.
Web GUI issue? Please check apache error (debian/ubuntu: /var/log/apache2/error.log, centos/fedora/rhel: /var/log/httpd/error_log) and php-fpm log (/var/log/php*-fpm.log)
Please support FOG if you like it: https://wiki.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php/Support_FOG
-
@Tom-Elliott it was quite a while ago i did my testing (and of course i didn’t actually document anything…) but i was working with about 3 or 5 images seeing how much they shared so i could estimate from there, and it wasn’t good. very little duplication detected in spite of the obvious duplication that was taking place.
someone who knows what they’re doing might have much different results
