From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 6 06:13:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1AF16A403 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:13:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-stable@mawer.org) Received: from customer-domains.icp-qv1-irony8.iinet.net.au (customer-domains.icp-qv1-irony8.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.133]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AA013C4A3 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:13:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd-stable@mawer.org) Received: from 203-206-173-235.perm.iinet.net.au (HELO [10.24.1.1]) ([203.206.173.235]) by customer-domains.icp-qv1-irony8.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2007 14:03:45 +0800 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAFqpx0XLzq3r/2dsb2JhbAANn2wBAQGBBw X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,286,1167580800"; d="scan'208"; a="636431903:sNHT19180198" Message-ID: <45C81A5B.1010608@mawer.org> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:04:11 +1100 From: Antony Mawer User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Bryant References: <45C52C3E.8040204@elgia.com> <20070205101806.b45f4118.dom@helenmarks.co.uk> <45C7EC5F.2030108@cyberwang.net> In-Reply-To: <45C7EC5F.2030108@cyberwang.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dominic Marks Subject: Re: dd as an imaging solution. X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:13:48 -0000 On 6/02/2007 1:47 PM, Sean Bryant wrote: > Dominic Marks wrote: >> Check out G4U (NetBSD based) > > The only problem I can see here is that multiple parallel reads will > have serious performance impacts, thus greatly increasing the cloning of > the disk. > > The solution with dd, tee and netcat would just daisy chain the copy > across the network which would be way faster. Now all you need is G4U to operate in a multicast manner like Symantec Ghost Corporate Edition, and your transfer speed wouldn't reduce with each additional client (eg. 100mbps for 1 client, 50mbps each for 2 clients, 33.3mbps each for 3 clients, ...) --Antony