Araknis

Possible Speedup Installing XP by Expanding I386

29 posts in this topic

I know a lot of MSFN users try to compress there Unattended Installation to fit on a CD.

However, I was thinking that during windows installation that a lot of the time needed for install is caused from the expanding of all of the files in the I386 directory.

I then figured I would try a ISO in VMWare with all of the files alreaded expanded and see if it speed up installation and produced a usable OS.

I did quick test of a ISO image in VMWare and it worked.

However, I did not test to see if it caused any problems with windows file protection or any other problems.

I did try to install other optional components and it seemed to work.

What I did was integrate all hotfixes first.

The I expanded all of the *.**_ files in the I386 and I386/Lang Folders.

Using the dos command expand -r (commpressed file) by using a batch file like bellow and placing it in my I386 directory then in my Lang directory.

for %%U in (*.**_) DO (
expand -r %%U
del %%U
)
pause

Note: expanding all of the files will take a long time.

Doing this left only the following compressed files in the I386 folder.

NETWORKS._ PROTOCOL._ QUOTES._ SERVICES._ TERMCAP._

The only side effect I noticed from doing this was the the /integrate switch did not work with latter hotfixes.

However, I am assuming you could just compress the files trying to be replaced by the hotfix and it should work again.

I was wondering what other peoples reactions and comments were from doing this type of installation?

Also if this is a bad idea or not?

Fixed: Remove the compressed files after expanding.

Thanks You for spotting the error galvanocentric

Edited by Araknis
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting... I will give it a try ASAP. For people like me (that are using network intead of CDs/DVDs and dont care about space) this could be really interesting

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree!

This could be quite interesting!

/ SwedenXP B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be great for an XP DVD, but not so much as CD if you are, like I am, adding additional software onto the installation.

Two questions-

How much more space does it take?

How much faster is it?

Take into account that installing on VMWare isn't going to be as fast as doing an actual install, so do you know how long it would take to install on VMWare without uncompressing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried this, it added 100+MB to my CD but didn't offer any speed improvement on install. I thought it'd speed up install on old pc's, rather it slowed them down!

On my P200MX laptop (ata33@3600rpm hdd, 10Xcdrom):

compressed: ~45min install (~10min to copy files)

expanded: ~1HR install (~25min to copy files)

Perhaps on faster hardware, the results would have been different...but on my p4-2.4c (sata-hdd, 52Xcdrom) a complete install occurs in ~20 mins, so why bother?

Edited by nateklomp
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To know what is faster you need some tests. There are two processes consuming time:

1. transfering data from install source

2. extraction of sources

because of nowadays processor speeds I think that the extraction is a very fast process consuming only little time. The data transfer from source depends on the media it is stored. Reading a CD-Rom is not really fast (DVD I think will perform better, LAN ...) and this could lead to slower installation without compression on fast computers (time for data transfer >> time for decompression in this case). Therefor testing in VMWare using an image stored on your hard disc produces not really usable results. But maybe both processes take only a small amount of time compared to others during installation ... just some ideas :whistle:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone try it on virtual machine? What is the difference in speed?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a lot of MSFN users try to compress there Unattended Installation to fit on a CD.

However, I was thinking that during windows installation that a lot of the time needed for install is caused from the expanding of all of the files in the I386 directory.

I then figured I would try a ISO in VMWare with all of the files alreaded expanded and see if it speed up installation and produced a usable OS.

I did quick test of a ISO image in VMWare and it worked.

However, I did not test to see if it caused any problems with windows file protection or any other problems. 

I did try to install other optional components and it seemed to work.

What I did was integrate all hotfixes first.

The I expanded all of the *.**_ files in the I386 and I386/Lang Folders.

Using the dos command expand -r (commpressed file) by using a batch file like bellow and placing it in my I386 directory then in my Lang directory.

for %%U in (*.**_) DO (
expand -r %%U
)

Note: expanding all of the files will take a long time.

Doing this left only the following compressed files in the I386 folder.

NETWORKS._ PROTOCOL._  QUOTES._  SERVICES._ TERMCAP._

The only side effect I noticed from doing this was the the /integrate switch did not work with latter hotfixes.

However, I am assuming you could just compress the files trying to be replaced by the hotfix and it should work again.

I was wondering what other peoples reactions and comments were from doing this type of installation?

Also if this is a bad idea or not?

I'm installing from DVD-media so space isn't an issue. I'm going to benchmark this puppy the ol' fashioned way when I get a chance. Get a stop watch and run A) an install the usual way and B) an install the new, uncompressed way. :P

Never knew you could do this, thanks!

[EDIT]

Okay, first thing I noticed, obviously, your batch file doesn't remove the old files!!!

Here, use this instead:

@echo off

for %%U in (*.**_) DO (
expand -r %%U
del %%U
)

pause

Oh, and just so y'all know the DVD I'm testing... I uncompressed EVERYTHING in i386 so if the drivers needed compression to be installed I guess I'm screwed. :thumbup

Edited by galvanocentric
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, first thing I noticed, obviously, your batch file doesn't remove the old files!!!
Sorry, about that :whistle: I had deleted my batch files when I made my ISO.

Actually, I created a DeleteMe.cmd and ran it when extract was done. However, your method works too.

for %%U in (*.**_) DO (
expand -r %%U
echo del %%U >> DeleteMe.cmd
)

This error/omission in my posted script probably explains why nateklomp had a slowdown instead of a expected speedup.

There would have been duplicates both the expanded and compressed files.

However, I highly doubt that it added only 100MB as just expanding the Lang Directory goes from 99MB to 193MB.

So, without deleting the expanded files you should have had both 99 + 193 = 292MB worth of files just in the Lang Directory.

The I386 directory itself goes form something like 377MB to 739MB however this is not that accurate as I also had hotfixes with the /integrate switch in there.

I hope you are not wasting DVD's trying this and just creating a ISO image and trying in a Virtual Machine.

Thanks for the comments and corrections.

Edited by Araknis
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because of nowadays processor speeds I think that the extraction is a very fast process consuming only little time.
marek722, Here is a idea to get an idea on how long it is taking to expand all of the installation files.

Just expand the files by running the script in your unattended I386 folder and see if expanding all of those files is a very fast process.

Also, yes I know that this test is not that accurate becuase when you install Windows XP that it does not expand all of the files in the I386 folder in the first place but I did not want to take the time to index every file that got expanded and write a batch file to just expand those files and I also know that the Lang folder is optional. I just wanted to see if it would install and if it is possible to speedup installation by doing this.

But you can see from the test that if I am correct that expanding before hand could and should speed up installation time becuase you have skipped the need to expand the files durring installation.

By the whay haven't there been any success stories?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna test this out right now.

I've made an nLited install with SP2 and hotfixes, and removed some stuff. Post nLite the (unexpanded) install size is 292MB.

The expanded install size is 572.9MB.

I'll let you all know how long it takes to do a clean install of each in VMWare.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't be able to test this in VMWare, because what you're really testing is whether the read speed of the optical disk drive is fast enough to make up for time lost by the CPU expanding the files. Whether or not you get a speed gain will depend on your hard disk, optical disk drive, CPU, and the written media you burned.

This is basically what Marek said, but no one seems to have paid attention.

Also,

Just expand the files by running the script in your unattended I386 folder and see if expanding all of those files is a very fast process.
You aren't just expanding the files, you are also writing (and reading) those files to the disk, which is a slow process for such a large write. The writing process needs to be done no matter what method you use (obviously), so this is irrelevant to the testing.

If you really wanted to see if this would be faster, you would need to monitor the time for completion of the copy from removable media to the hard disk versus the expansion of the same files to the hard disk. Do this over a wide range of hardware to find an approximate coincidence, then use this point as the critical point to determine which type of Windows install to use. If the critical point is on older/slower hardware then that of the average user of your disk, then it may be worth expanding the files.

Sorry for the somewhat incoherent post, but hopefully I got across some of my concerns. I will be interested to see what the forum decides on this method.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah... I see the dilemma. Well... my two VMWare installs are done now anyways... The ISO was on my hard drive, and as I expected, the uncompressed install was faster (~16mins) compared to the compressed install (~20mins) (1.4GHz P-M, 512MB allocated to VM, 5400RPM 8MB HD).

I've got two computers at home that need some formatting done to them before September, so I'll be able to get a better idea of the advantages there.

Althon XP 1800+

512MB PC2700 RAM

40GB 5400RPM HD

48x CD-ROM

Celeron 1.0GHz

128MB PC2100 RAM

20GB HD (don't know what speed off the top of my head).

48x CD-ROM

Cheers!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Achdine, I now understand what you and Marek are saying

...what you're really testing is whether the read speed of the optical disk drive is fast enough to make up for time lost by the CPU expanding the files.  Whether or not you get a speed gain will depend on your hard disk, optical disk drive, CPU, and the written media you burned.
I get what you are saying reading from a Hard Drive is faster than from the CD/DVD and it may be faster to extract the compressed file from the hard drive then to read the extracted file from the CD/DVD.

However, I had originally thought that you would be saving time by doing some Preprocessing (I thought hey the files need to be extracted either way)? Good point you two.

I was thinking that the extraction process from the CD/DVD would be taking some resources/overhead but you are correct it might also be creating some overhead becuase it is know reading a much larger file from the optical media.

However, A person may only gain a advantage by using a hybrid and only expanding files that were compressed by a certain percentage.

Lets just say for example we only expand those files that are compressed 30% or lower. These files probably have not gained to much in size so they should see a improvement by being expanded on the CD/DVD.

We then leave the other files compressed because these files would be faster to expand on the hard drive then read the large extracted file from the CD/DVD.

I think that you are right that a persons hardware speeds will determine if you get any real speed gain.

Do you know if this would be like a Ghost image and if you get any speed gain from using them vs a Unattended CD/DVD?

If you could place the extracted Install image on your hard drive in a seperate partition and boot and run it from there than I think you would defenattly see a speed gain.

Sorry for this dumb question but why does a VMWare test show a improvement?

Have either of you tried this method in VMWare, and if so what did you think?

Thanks for the info made me think.

Edited by Araknis
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for this dumb question but why does a VMWare test show a improvement?

Have either of you tried this method in VMWare, and if so what did you think?

Well... specifically, a VMWare test with an ISO mounted as the CD-Drive would show an improvement since transfer speeds from hard drive to hard drive are typically faster than from an optical drive. That's the way I had my two installs setup that I descibed in my previous post.

In the end, I'm not sure as to whether or not this particular part of setup would give you enough of a time bonus to justify the benefits.

Another point is that not all computers have DVD drives, so if you're hoping to install other software, expanding the entire contents of the I386 folder doesn't leave you with much room to play with (even after nLite).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.