Re: [Clonezilla-live] Partclone vs Partimage
On 14.04.2010 23:16, Steven Shiau wrote:
Lukas Grässlin wrote:
On 14.04.2010 16:15, Steven Shiau wrote:
Lukas Grässlin wrote:
There is an option -f of partclone which you might be interested to
give it try.
You can tune it to see if any difference.
As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would
be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed
anyway is run.
Thanks. I will check with Thomas,
No problem.
You can see it e.g. here in restore.c :
/// start restore image file to partition
for( block_id = 0; block_id image_hdr.totalblock; block_id++ ){
/* doing things, copying the blocks */
update_pui(prog, copied, done);
} // end of for
I did a patch for myself within I told it just call update_pui once for
5000 blocks. Don't know if its a good idea, but it worked ;)
Good, and the performance is?
Could you please also send us the patch file?
Thanks.
I got about 20-39 MB/s.
Here is the patch. There are some other changes within:
* I completeley disabled the update_pui on the server side, because
clonezilla anyway doesn't show the output there.
* I changed the display of the speed from */min to */s beaucse I thoght
it's better readable for the most people.
* I implemented that crc32-checks can be disabled. Not an good idea, but
I wanted it for testing and its disabled by default.
Sorry, I had no time to rip off these other changes but it should be ok
anyway I hope.
Regards,
Lukas
Steven.
If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too.
BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's
partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere...
Please let us know the results.
Thanks.
Regards,
Steven.
On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote:
Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone.
Lukas,
Please send us gprof results you have.
Thanks.
Steven.
On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote:
Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the on-the-fly
performance Thread in this mailing list.
Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can
improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the
expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like
calculating the
speed too often which resultes in high cpu load.
Regards,
Lukas
On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
Hello Steven,
I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I
always used the
custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool.
Since partimage
seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and
considering that
Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use
this.
My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it
started
saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was
some
progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after
that it
started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual
creation of the
image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as
partclone starts.
Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious).
Thanks for Clonezillla.
Best regards,
Jorge
--
Download Intel#174; 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
Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
--
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
diff -Nur partclone-0.2.8/src/chkimg.c partclone-0.2.8-cx-patched/src/chkimg.c
--- partclone-0.2.8/src/chkimg.c2010-03-29 10:25:04.0 +0200
+++ partclone-0.2.8-cx-patched/src/chkimg.c 2010-04-13 15:08:00.0
+0200
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@
log_mesg(0, 1, 1, debug, read errno = %i \n, errno);
/// read crc32 code and check it.
-crc_ck = crc32(crc_ck, buffer, r_size);
+crc_ck = crc32(crc_ck, buffer, r_size, opt);
crc_buffer = (char*)malloc(CRC_SIZE); ///alloc a memory to copy
data
if(crc_buffer == NULL){
log_mesg(0, 1, 1, debug, %s, %i, ERROR:%s, __func__,
__LINE__, strerror(errno));
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@
memcpy
Re: [Clonezilla-live] Partclone vs Partimage
There is an option -f of partclone which you might be interested to give it try. You can tune it to see if any difference. As I understood the code, -f only affects the time the gui itself would be refreshed, but the update_pui method which also runs calculate_speed anyway is run. If I've time I'll try the older clonezilla live, too. BTW, maybe you can also give Clonezilla live 1.2.2-14 a try? It's partclone is older, and we might have a regression somewhere... Please let us know the results. Thanks. Regards, Steven. On 14.04.2010 10:33, Steven Shiau wrote: Yes, Thomas Tsai is working on the improvement of partclone. Lukas, Please send us gprof results you have. Thanks. Steven. On 2010/4/14 下午 02:43, Lukas Grässlin wrote: Regarding the perfmance of partclone: Look at the on-the-fly performance Thread in this mailing list. Partclone does some odd things which slow down the speed. You can improve this by saying not to use the gui. (I think this is in the expert options). But it stills does stupid things, like calculating the speed too often which resultes in high cpu load. Regards, Lukas On 14.04.2010 06:39, Jorge Fábregas wrote: Hello Steven, I've been using Clonezilla happily for more than 2 years and I always used the custom options and specifically partimage as the cloning tool. Since partimage seems to be a dead project (and no support for ext4) and considering that Clonezilla uses partclone as the default option I decided to use this. My observation was that partclone takes some more time. When it started saving the partition, I wasn't sure what it was doing. There was some progress indicator (percentage) (Generating bitmap..) and I after that it started again another progress indicator (I guess the actual creation of the image). I'm a bit confused about these 2 steps as soon as partclone starts. Any tip will be appreciated. (just curious). Thanks for Clonezillla. Best regards, Jorge -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live -- 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 -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
Re: [Clonezilla-live] on-the-fly performance
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 -- Download Intel#174; 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 Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
[Clonezilla-live] Problems migrating SCSI to IDE (lvm not migrated)
Hi there, migrating a system with LVM with ocs-onthefly from a SCSi to an IDE machine fails when migrating the LVM. Scenario: SCSI-Machine: Server, disks are detected as /dev/sd* IDE-Machine: Client, disks are detected as /dev/hda* -- and this is a problem! Normaly every distri uses libata which causes that als IDE-HDDs are detectes as /dev/sd*. Clonzilla/Debian also uses libata, BUT they have a patch which _disables_ liabata for a special chipset: (this is a big problem e.g. if you migrate a scsi machine to a kvm virtual machine with ide) - see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=535959 The problem while migrating is, that it fails with a message like this: pvcreate ... cannot find deivce /dev/sda6 ... etc Of course, there is NO sda6, theres a hda6. Either this is somehow in the clonezilla script fixed, or you have to remove the debian patch from your kernel. I think the last possibility would be ok, because, every distri uses libata for any chipset... Also it would maybe avoid possible other hda/sda-naming problems. 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 -- Come build with us! The BlackBerryreg; Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9#45;12, 2009. Register now#33; http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf ___ Clonezilla-live mailing list Clonezilla-live@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
