Posts made by scgsg

@Tom-Elliott Ok only difference between your advise and what i’ve done so far is that I’ve used compression level 6 with Gzip for the PartClone image. I’ll do another test, and capture a PartClone image with compression set to 3. Will see how that affects the deployment times.

@Tom-Elliott Thank you for that, useful to know. Just to clarify, thats update the display? so does not effect the accuracy of the recorded logs?

Just wanted to confirm that my initial statement (i.e. PartClone takes 3 times longer) is in correct as I’ve checked the Image Log. It doesn’t take as long to deploy as i initially stated but it is still slower than PartImage deployment, ~5-6min longer to deploy a PartClone image that is 33GB on server (according to the log).

@george1421 Ok just to clarify, I’m deploying both images from the same fog server, which is a VM created on vmware vsphere and sits on Ubuntu Minimal Server 14.04.5. The comparison I’m doing is from the same fog server deploying 2 images (not at the same time naturally) and is sent to the same client each time. 1 image is the old image (34GB on server) from the old v0.32 server, which is PartImage and the other image is the same image recaptured (33GB on server), which captures in PartClone with compression set at 6. Both fog server and client are on the same gig switch. The client machine is a rebadged intel box with Pentium Dual Core 3GHz, 4G RAM, 1G LAN and 150GB SATA HDD.

Admittedly I haven’t been looking at the estimated speeds but the actual time take to deploy which at last test was 12min 3 secs for the old PartImage image and 17min 33secs for the new PartClone image. This was my second test and PartClone is a lot faster than previous test so for now I will say that I must have made an error recording the first test. That being said, PartClone is still slower than PartImage and this is under the best of conditions.

Thank you for the information, it is certainly interesting as a comparison.

I found a post here that indicated level of compression may have a bearing on download speeds and potentially higher level of compression could be better but this would have differing results depending on client machine specs.

I did see those posts and upload speeds were mentioned but I don’t think download speeds were mentioned and thats my query. Am I right in saying that I don’t have a choice anyway, as any image I upload now will be PartClone?

Sorry if this has been covered before but I haven’t found a thread on this. Anyway, I’ve just migrated from v0.32 to v1.4.0 so as part of that I’m recapturing imported images so PartClone is used instead of PartImage. Thing is what I’ve found is that the older images deploy faster, almost 3 times faster than the PartClone images. From what I can see the original PartImage images are compressed (close to 50%) so with the PartClone image set to roughly the same level of compression, it took ~3 times as long to deploy. Is this expected behavior?

Should I create images with PartImage instead?

Any advise is appreciated.