DISM /Capture-FFU and /Apply-FFU is painfully slow
I need to capture+apply an entire disk image with Windows Full Flash Update (FFU)
It seems an interesting improvement compared to WIM images, also they state that it is faster... but it doesn't seem so to me.
My system is composed by:
- Boot partition (less than 500 MB)
- Windows 10 IoT Enterprise 2016 partition (60 GB, 50% used)
- Another primary partition (40 GB, 30% used)
Also, the hardware is pretty good! Intel i7-7700H, 32 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD.
I boot with a WinPE (latest ADK version - Windows 10, 1809) USB and run this:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /capture-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /capturedrive=\.PhysicalDrive0 /name:disk0
It took 2 hours to complete and generate a 30 GB FFU file.
The version of DISM is 10.0.17763.1
Same thing for the apply phase:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /apply-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /applydrive:\.PhysicalDrive0
It seems slow to be because in this article the author says "FFU takes about 15 minutes to create a 28 GB FFU image".
windows disk-image deployment dism winpe
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
add a comment |
I need to capture+apply an entire disk image with Windows Full Flash Update (FFU)
It seems an interesting improvement compared to WIM images, also they state that it is faster... but it doesn't seem so to me.
My system is composed by:
- Boot partition (less than 500 MB)
- Windows 10 IoT Enterprise 2016 partition (60 GB, 50% used)
- Another primary partition (40 GB, 30% used)
Also, the hardware is pretty good! Intel i7-7700H, 32 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD.
I boot with a WinPE (latest ADK version - Windows 10, 1809) USB and run this:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /capture-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /capturedrive=\.PhysicalDrive0 /name:disk0
It took 2 hours to complete and generate a 30 GB FFU file.
The version of DISM is 10.0.17763.1
Same thing for the apply phase:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /apply-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /applydrive:\.PhysicalDrive0
It seems slow to be because in this article the author says "FFU takes about 15 minutes to create a 28 GB FFU image".
windows disk-image deployment dism winpe
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45
add a comment |
I need to capture+apply an entire disk image with Windows Full Flash Update (FFU)
It seems an interesting improvement compared to WIM images, also they state that it is faster... but it doesn't seem so to me.
My system is composed by:
- Boot partition (less than 500 MB)
- Windows 10 IoT Enterprise 2016 partition (60 GB, 50% used)
- Another primary partition (40 GB, 30% used)
Also, the hardware is pretty good! Intel i7-7700H, 32 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD.
I boot with a WinPE (latest ADK version - Windows 10, 1809) USB and run this:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /capture-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /capturedrive=\.PhysicalDrive0 /name:disk0
It took 2 hours to complete and generate a 30 GB FFU file.
The version of DISM is 10.0.17763.1
Same thing for the apply phase:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /apply-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /applydrive:\.PhysicalDrive0
It seems slow to be because in this article the author says "FFU takes about 15 minutes to create a 28 GB FFU image".
windows disk-image deployment dism winpe
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
I need to capture+apply an entire disk image with Windows Full Flash Update (FFU)
It seems an interesting improvement compared to WIM images, also they state that it is faster... but it doesn't seem so to me.
My system is composed by:
- Boot partition (less than 500 MB)
- Windows 10 IoT Enterprise 2016 partition (60 GB, 50% used)
- Another primary partition (40 GB, 30% used)
Also, the hardware is pretty good! Intel i7-7700H, 32 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD.
I boot with a WinPE (latest ADK version - Windows 10, 1809) USB and run this:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /capture-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /capturedrive=\.PhysicalDrive0 /name:disk0
It took 2 hours to complete and generate a 30 GB FFU file.
The version of DISM is 10.0.17763.1
Same thing for the apply phase:
powercfg /s 8c5e7fda-e8bf-4a96-9a85-a6e23a8c635c
DISM.exe /apply-ffu /imagefile=g:test.ffu /applydrive:\.PhysicalDrive0
It seems slow to be because in this article the author says "FFU takes about 15 minutes to create a 28 GB FFU image".
windows disk-image deployment dism winpe
windows disk-image deployment dism winpe
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
edited Dec 14 at 12:18
Mureinik
2,33751525
2,33751525
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
asked Dec 14 at 8:30
TheUnexpected
2201314
2201314
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45
add a comment |
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1383503%2fdism-capture-ffu-and-apply-ffu-is-painfully-slow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1383503%2fdism-capture-ffu-and-apply-ffu-is-painfully-slow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I assume you are taking an image of a physical machine instead of a virtual machine? I assume the time difference is the second partition you are creating image of (and the fact you likely have 50% more data) then the author did).
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 8:41
Yes it is a physical machine. You say that the second partition may slow down everything? It seems way too much slowdown to me...
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:42
@Ramhound yes, my data is 50% more... but the hardware is faster so I expected, more or less, 15x2 minutes... 2 hours is an huge difference instead.
– TheUnexpected
Dec 14 at 8:52
Your hardware isn't that much faster, and the major bottlekneck in this case, would be the storage device. Your faster processor wouldn't have that much of an impact on I/O reads and writes.
– Ramhound
Dec 14 at 16:45