Thread: [Clonezilla-live] on-the-fly performance
A partition and disk imaging/cloning program
Brought to you by:
steven_shiau
Menu
▾
▴
clonezilla-live
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-03-29 10:01:30
|
Hi, whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over netcat thing) especially perfomance? I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it faster than 5MB/s with compression). Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? Regards, Lukas -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-03-29 14:27:07
|
How about the speed when you save the image? What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? PATA? USB? Or? Steven. Lukas Grässlin wrote: > Hi, > > whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over > netcat thing) especially perfomance? > > I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which > is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I > didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it > faster than 5MB/s with compression). > > Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? > > Regards, > Lukas > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-03-29 15:30:52
|
Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is could be. What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: > How about the speed when you save the image? > What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? > PATA? USB? Or? > > Steven. > > Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >> >> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >> >> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >> >> Regards, >> Lukas >> >> > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-03-31 09:10:19
|
Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can not give you the numbers. If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a try? To see if any big difference. Please let us know the results if you try that. Regards, Steven. On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: > Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some > IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely > able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda > of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) > > The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is could be. > > What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? > > I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. > > ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) > > > On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >> How about the speed when you save the image? >> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >> PATA? USB? Or? >> >> Steven. >> >> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>> >>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>> >>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Lukas >>> >>> >> > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-03-31 10:48:20
|
Hi James, Yes, we found there is an issue about partclone 0.2.7 performance. Therefore another Clonezilla live 20100330-karmic was uploaded with partclone 0.2.8 included. This issue should have been gone. Could you please give it a try? Please let us know the results. Thanks. Regards, Steven. On 2010/3/30 上午 03:26, James Dutton wrote: > Hi Steven: > > I find interest in Lukas' performance question. I have a similar > question concerning my desktop pc - no network involvement. Today I > downloaded Clonzilla-live-20100318-karmic and image copied my Fedora > 12 hard drive. With 20100308-karmic and earlier versions the process > usually takes about 8 minutes, the 20100318-karmic took 17 minutes. > The process averaged about 650mb per minute. The number of Fedora 12 > hard drive sectors used has remained fairly static so the time > difference can not be accounted for due to disk utilization. Image > size for 20100308 is 4.03mb and image size for 20100318 is 4.51mb. > Also the system hardware configuration has not changed. > > 2010/3/29 Steven Shiau<st...@nc...>: >> How about the speed when you save the image? >> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >> PATA? USB? Or? >> >> Steven. >> >> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>> >>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>> >>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Lukas >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Steven Shiau<steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> >> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. >> http://www.nchc.org.tw >> Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A >> Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval >> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs >> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. >> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Clonezilla-live mailing list >> Clo...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live >> -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-01 03:22:40
|
Hi James, James Dutton wrote: > Hi Steven: > > Now you have me confused. I checked sourceforge and the copy of > 20100330-karmic is the same version I downloaded and tested yesterday > morning. No change in size - 126877696 bytes. Are we out of sync by > one day? Or maybe you are receiving too many emails at this time? > Here is the testing results I emailed yesterday, are they the results > you are looking for? > You can check the file packages.txt in your Clonezilla live 20100330-karmic, search "partclone", if it's 0.2.8-1drbl, then we are talking about the same one. Since this is a minor update, so the size is the same. However, you can compare that with md5sum or sha1sum, they must be different. > 0308-karmic - calculate bitmap = 39sec - image copy = 9.972min - avg > speed = 804.0 mb/min - block size 4096 bytes - block count 1969406 > > 0318-karmic - calculate bitmap = 4.04min - image copy = 12.15min - avg > speed = 650.5 mb/min - block size 4096 bytes - block count 1969406 > > 0330-karmic - calculate bitmap = 13sec - image copy = 8.32min - avg > speed = 960.39mb/min - block size 4096 bytes - block count 2000815 > OK, so now 20100330-karmic is the fastest one, good! Thanks. Steven. > Best Regards, > > Jim Dutton > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Steven Shiau <st...@nc...> wrote: > >> Hi James, >> Yes, we found there is an issue about partclone 0.2.7 performance. Therefore >> another Clonezilla live 20100330-karmic was uploaded with partclone 0.2.8 >> included. This issue should have been gone. >> Could you please give it a try? >> Please let us know the results. >> Thanks. >> >> Regards, >> Steven. >> >> >> -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-09 07:49:31
|
On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: > Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can > not give you the numbers. > If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. > > BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now > included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a > try? To see if any big difference. > Please let us know the results if you try that. So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm with two cores, but it only uses one). I think that is the main bottleneck. > > Regards, > Steven. > > On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >> >> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >> could be. >> >> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >> >> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >> >> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >> >> >> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>> PATA? USB? Or? >>> >>> Steven. >>> >>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>> >>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>> >>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Lukas >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-12 01:39:16
|
On 2010/4/9 下午 03:50, Lukas Grässlin wrote: > On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: >> Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can >> not give you the numbers. >> If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. >> >> BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now >> included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a >> try? To see if any big difference. >> Please let us know the results if you try that. > > So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed > are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the > client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the > partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm > with two cores, but it only uses one). > I think that is the main bottleneck. What's the memory size you have on the vm? Steven. > >> >> Regards, >> Steven. >> >> On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >>> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >>> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >>> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >>> >>> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >>> could be. >>> >>> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >>> >>> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >>> >>> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >>> >>> >>> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>>> PATA? USB? Or? >>>> >>>> Steven. >>>> >>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>>> >>>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>>> >>>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Lukas >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-12 07:04:40
|
On 12.04.2010 03:39, Steven Shiau wrote: > > > On 2010/4/9 下午 03:50, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can >>> not give you the numbers. >>> If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. >>> >>> BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now >>> included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a >>> try? To see if any big difference. >>> Please let us know the results if you try that. >> >> So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed >> are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the >> client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the >> partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm >> with two cores, but it only uses one). >> I think that is the main bottleneck. > What's the memory size you have on the vm? 1 GB, but I can't remember how much was used. I will do a retest. > > Steven. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven. >>> >>> On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >>>> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >>>> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >>>> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >>>> >>>> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >>>> could be. >>>> >>>> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >>>> >>>> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >>>> >>>> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>>>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>>>> PATA? USB? Or? >>>>> >>>>> Steven. >>>>> >>>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone >>>>>> over >>>>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>>>> >>>>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network >>>>>> which >>>>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc >>>>>> but I >>>>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lukas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-12 13:40:16
|
I have news! I had too much time ;) so I recompiled partclone for profiling with gprof. The terrifying result: partclone wastes almost 90% of the time with logging, calculating the speed and updating the gui. (the crc checks need as well some time). (for example it does such bad things like trying to refresh the gui for EACH block, which is toooo much ;) ) I'll give you the complete gprof results later. I'am atm buzy with testing. I removed for testing just for fun all functions which needed much time as per gprof and OH WONDER, the speed growed from 5-6 MB/s to 20-35 MB/s. On 12.04.2010 03:39, Steven Shiau wrote: > > > On 2010/4/9 下午 03:50, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can >>> not give you the numbers. >>> If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. >>> >>> BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now >>> included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a >>> try? To see if any big difference. >>> Please let us know the results if you try that. >> >> So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed >> are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the >> client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the >> partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm >> with two cores, but it only uses one). >> I think that is the main bottleneck. > What's the memory size you have on the vm? > > Steven. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven. >>> >>> On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >>>> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >>>> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >>>> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >>>> >>>> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >>>> could be. >>>> >>>> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >>>> >>>> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >>>> >>>> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>>>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>>>> PATA? USB? Or? >>>>> >>>>> Steven. >>>>> >>>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone >>>>>> over >>>>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>>>> >>>>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network >>>>>> which >>>>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc >>>>>> but I >>>>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lukas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Lukas G. <luk...@co...> - 2010-04-09 13:00:07
|
On 09.04.2010 09:50, Lukas Grässlin wrote: > On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: >> Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can >> not give you the numbers. >> If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. >> >> BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now >> included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a >> try? To see if any big difference. >> Please let us know the results if you try that. > > So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed > are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the > client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the > partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm > with two cores, but it only uses one). > I think that is the main bottleneck. Ok, I found out how to use partimage instead of partclone ;) and it is _much_ faster. It transfers ca 1 - 1.5 GB/min, 17 - 25 MB/s which is much faster than partclone in my case. Why is partclone per default prefered? Cause it supports more filesystems? > >> >> Regards, >> Steven. >> >> On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >>> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >>> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >>> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >>> >>> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >>> could be. >>> >>> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >>> >>> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >>> >>> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >>> >>> >>> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>>> PATA? USB? Or? >>>> >>>> Steven. >>>> >>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>>> >>>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>>> >>>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Lukas >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- Lukas Grässlin Collax GmbH . Basler Str. 115a . 79115 Freiburg . Germany p: +49 (0) 89-990 157-23 Collax - Simply Linux. Geschäftsführer: Boris Nalbach AG München HRB 158898 * Ust.-IdNr: DE 814464942 |
|
From: Steven S. <st...@nc...> - 2010-04-12 01:40:59
|
On 2010/4/9 下午 09:00, Lukas Grässlin wrote: > On 09.04.2010 09:50, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >> On 31.03.2010 11:10, Steven Shiau wrote: >>> Right now I do not have real machines which I can test. Therefore I can >>> not give you the numbers. >>> If anyone on this forum has such numbers to share, please share that. >>> >>> BTW, there is a performance improvement in partclone 0.2.8, and it's now >>> included in clonezilla live 20100330-karmic. Could you please give it a >>> try? To see if any big difference. >>> Please let us know the results if you try that. >> >> So, I tried the 20100330 clonezilla ISO and the results with the speed >> are the same. I think the main reason for that bad speed is, that on the >> client side (the vm, where the physical machine is migrated to) the >> partclone.restore process procudes almost 100% CPU load. (It's s a vm >> with two cores, but it only uses one). >> I think that is the main bottleneck. > > Ok, I found out how to use partimage instead of partclone ;) and it is > _much_ faster. It transfers ca 1 - 1.5 GB/min, 17 - 25 MB/s which is > much faster than partclone in my case. > > Why is partclone per default prefered? Cause it supports more filesystems? Yes, that's one of the reason. Another one is partclone does CRC check for the image. Maybe it's due to partclone need more memory space, and your VM's RAM size happens to be in the critical point... Steven. > >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven. >>> >>> On 2010/3/29 下午 11:31, Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>> Both SATA Disks, the destination is a virtual machine but I did some >>>> IO-Performance tests with dd on the virtual machine. It is definitely >>>> able to write and read with more than 20MB/s. (I did dd if=/dev/sda >>>> of=/dev/zero bs=100M count=10 etc.) >>>> >>>> The network can't really limit the speed, so I don't know what is >>>> could be. >>>> >>>> What's your experience with the speed? Is it faster? >>>> >>>> I'll do some tests on my own with dd and netcat or so. >>>> >>>> ((sorry, forgot to click the reply-all button ;) )) >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29.03.2010 16:26, Steven Shiau wrote: >>>>> How about the speed when you save the image? >>>>> What's the disk types in the source and destination machines? SATA? >>>>> PATA? USB? Or? >>>>> >>>>> Steven. >>>>> >>>>> Lukas Grässlin wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> whats's you experience with the onthefly migration (that partclone over >>>>>> netcat thing) especially perfomance? >>>>>> >>>>>> I never get more than ~300MB/min (=~ 5MB/s) in a Gigabit network which >>>>>> is very dissappoiting. I already tried it without compression etc but I >>>>>> didn't get more speed. (Further the machines are fast enough to do it >>>>>> faster than 5MB/s with compression). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that a partclone issue? Have you any ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lukas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- Steven Shiau <steven _at_ nchc org tw> <steven _at_ stevenshiau org> National Center for High-performance Computing, Taiwan. http://www.nchc.org.tw Public Key Server PGP Key ID: 1024D/9762755A Fingerprint: A2A1 08B7 C22C 3D06 34DB F4BC 08B3 E3D7 9762 755A |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X