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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clonezilla-live
