Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Resource analysis of PXE based deployment solutions from Microsoft, Acronis and the FOG project
University West, Department of Engineering Science, Division of Computer, Electrical and Surveying Engineering.
University West, Department of Engineering Science, Division of Computer, Electrical and Surveying Engineering.
2016 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

In a PXE based deployment an operating system is sent or installed over an IP based net-work, creating a centralised point of control for the management of multiple clients to effectively minimise the workload of the administrator and the total time needed to install operating systems. This project examines the processor, memory and network utilisation of four selected PXE based operating system deployment solutions - Acronis Snap Deploy 5, FOG and two variants of Windows Deployment Services (WDS) - in a part virtualised and part physical environment to determine their differences, scalability and appropriate role.

The experimental setup consisted of five client computers, a traffic log server, and a server hosting virtual machines onto which the solutions were installed. Measurements were done using Windows Performance Monitor on the main server to poll data from its virtual machines. The time frame of each deployment was determined by the time stamp of the first DHCPDiscover packet sent from a client to the point of time where the network communication between the server and client(s) was complete.

Acronis and FOG were determined to be much faster than WDS in regards of time, where Acronis adds less time per added client in multicast environments than FOG. The processor utilisation is increased for all systems in multicast scenarios compared to unicast deployments, and Acronis had the highest average and peak processor utilisation throughout the processor measurements. Memory utilisation is a non-issue, and no significant increase was detected between unicast and multicast deployments, or when adding clients to a multicast scenario. The FOG machine running CentOS 6.7 and Linux Integration Services displayed excessive amounts of memory utilisation, a symptom not displayed with LIS inactive. This is determined to be the fault of LIS, and not FOG. Acronis and FOG forward multicast data about four times faster than WDS, which leaves little reason to choose WDS over the other two. Acronis includes some useful proprietary features not found in FOG, and utilises more processor time. The main reason to choose FOG over Acronis is the fact that it is open source and free to download.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. , 29 p.
Keyword [en]
Acronis, analysis, benchmark, deployment, FOG, Hyper-V, multicast, network, operating system, PXE, resource, virtualisation, WDS
National Category
Computer and Information Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hv:diva-9486Local ID: EXD500OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hv-9486DiVA: diva2:946438
Subject / course
Computer enigeering
Educational program
Nätverksteknik
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2016-08-10 Created: 2016-07-05 Last updated: 2016-08-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

By organisation
Division of Computer, Electrical and Surveying Engineering
Computer and Information Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 117 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf