Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:51:31 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Antony Mawer <fbsd-stable@mawer.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Dominic Marks <dom@helenmarks.co.uk>, Sean Bryant <sean@cyberwang.net> Subject: Re: dd as an imaging solution. Message-ID: <20070207055131.GC1620@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <45C81A5B.1010608@mawer.org> References: <45C52C3E.8040204@elgia.com> <20070205101806.b45f4118.dom@helenmarks.co.uk> <45C7EC5F.2030108@cyberwang.net> <45C81A5B.1010608@mawer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Antony Mawer wrote this message on Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 17:04 +1100:
> 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, ...)
Add FEC to the multicast, and you can constantly stream the data, and
not have to worry about dropped segments as much...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070207055131.GC1620>