boot server performance

[Roger Levy]

We will eventually be deploying a network of 128 XPe devices that will use
identical images. Operationally, the most convenient way of managing the images
seems to be via remote boot however I have observed that when a medium powered
server downloads just one target device using XPE's remote boot system, about
60% of the server's CPU cycles are used. Downloading two machines consumes 100%
of the CPU. Also I have noticed hardly any improvement in download times
between fast ethernet and gigabit. In all cases the target devices have been
1.6GHz Pentium-M machines so I don't think the disappointing performance is due
to the targets.

Is the XPe remote boot system intended to be production grade or is it simply a
development tool? Is there a remote boot system and strategy by which I could
download 128 machines with an image 150-200K in size in 2 minutes or less? If I
extrapolate my results it seems that it might take an hour or more to download
128 machines using the XPe remote boot program.

RHL

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Hi Roger,

Disable all firewalls and antivirus software's and try again this test.

Check Venturcom I think that they have what you need:
http://www.vci.com/products/index.asp

Regards,
Slobodan

 

[Dave August]

Roger,

I was just discussing the net boot issue with a frined who's a serious linux
guy.
He postulated (and I agree) that since net boot is just Bootp and TFTP there
is probably no reason that a properley configured 'nix box couldn't take
care of this... (Yes I know speaking 'nix here is probably hereasy but...)
And no I haven't taken this far enough to find out, just tossing out
alternatives..
FWIW I'll be close to being in the same boat as you , I'm looking at a
minimum of 24 machines in a small instlation and, in a big one quite
probably a 100

Dave

 

[Roger Levy]

I didn't have any firewalls or anti-virus software active during this test.

Venturcom claims to solve this problem but they do not solve it in a way that is
acceptable to me. Their product is not a boot server but rather it implements a
protocol that allows many XPe devices to share an image on a disk-based server,
i.e. the targets have a remotely mounted, shared disk. This scheme means that
all targets rely on centralized mass storage, "disk" accesses are slower, and
there is more congestion on the network. There are multiple reasons why this
scheme is not suitable for my application.

RHL

 

[KM]

Multicast Remote Boot/Installation would be a cure for you, folks.
Unfortunately, the current versions of Remote Boot Server and RIS are unicast only.

If it is a real pain for you and you are able to put much efforts in to the fixing it, look at the MTFTP specs.
Or this may be a good reason to send your feedback:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/community/community/feedback/feedxp/default.aspx