ZSTD Compression
-
@JJ-Fullmer Not at all.
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 I will give it a try then
-
@Tom-Elliott What about split vs not so split?
Have you tried the FogApi powershell module? It's pretty cool IMHO
https://github.com/darksidemilk/FogApi
https://fogapi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
https://www.powershellgallery.com/packages/FogApi
https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/12026/powershell-api-module -
@JJ-Fullmer Either or, shouldn’t matter in terms of performance.
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 i’m going to disagree with tom on the speed sacrifice with -19 setting. deploy speed, you won’t sacrifice much, and maybe even gain, but on capture it’s going to take quite a while longer. for me, i use -11.
-
@Junkhacker Well deploy is where speed is more important to me.
I gave 19 a go with the split and it actually had some weird error on the first deploy, I was in a meeting in my office so I didn’t really get to see the whole thing, but then it auto-retried the task and worked proper the second time. 2 minutes 18 seconds. The image size on the server seems to still be bigger than pigz was with 7.1 GB for a 15 GB image instead of 6.7 G for the old 18 GB image. But, don’t need to be too picky about it.@Tom-Elliott Two minor issues I noticed. The first time (the slow deploy) I queued the image after doing a full host inventory via the pxe boot on the host. I had not specified any snapins and it randomly added like 10 of them. The second time I queued it from the gui and deleted the snapins and the problem didn’t repeat itself. However in both instances the drive didn’t resize itself.
Have you tried the FogApi powershell module? It's pretty cool IMHO
https://github.com/darksidemilk/FogApi
https://fogapi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
https://www.powershellgallery.com/packages/FogApi
https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/12026/powershell-api-module -
@JJ-Fullmer What version of fog are you running?
-
@jj-fullmer and I had a remote session and the cause of the resize issue as described was found.
The issue he was seeing was the resize allowed a partition to be sized larger than the boundary of the disk. This only occurred, as far as I could tell, in the case of 4k disks again, but I’ve added code to correct for this in ANY case of the chunk size passed in.
Just thought I’d give an update to the “resize” issue as it was described and I’ve released RC-16 in an attempt to ensure this is corrected for.
-
Figured I should add, my speed issue was related to running PHPIPAM (a ip management tool) on my storage node server. It was slowing my image deploys down, not the zstd. It’s crazy fast at compression level 19 now.
Have you tried the FogApi powershell module? It's pretty cool IMHO
https://github.com/darksidemilk/FogApi
https://fogapi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
https://www.powershellgallery.com/packages/FogApi
https://forums.fogproject.org/topic/12026/powershell-api-module -
@JJ-Fullmer Well it wasn’t actually phpipam that was slowing it down.
I had some ssl logs running for a website running on that server. It was tracking access logs for every access of the ssl cert and site. Which was also adding up to over 400 GB of logs. I changed the apache configuration of the site to log much less. That solved the problem. So again, nothing wrong with zstd. Just wanted to have the right answer in case someone else happens to see a constant 5-8 Mbps transmit and receive on a storage node.
