Re: [Clonezilla-live] on-the-fly performance

[Steven S. <st...@nc...>]

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