Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On Wednesday 13 Jul 2011 21:51:52 Bill Longman wrote: On 07/13/2011 12:38 PM, Grant wrote: I suppose I could also do without the PXE layer and all of its requirements if I install some sort of minimal storage device (flash drive, SD card, USB key, etc.) into each workstation for the boot image. I could still push updates to the boot image over the network almost as easily as updating the single boot image on the server. snip It sounds like I should stick with ethernet for simplicity's sake. Yeah, PXE on the wire is the place to start if you want to boot across the network. Start simple. Just get a handful of similar NICs and you should be set. There's also the option of pre-made hardware thin clients that typically boot from internal flash and simply provide a remote interface to a central server (though most are geared towards RDP or Citrix), and some are even WiFi capable. A pre-made thin client could be the way to go. Do you know of any that are geared toward open protocols? Quick query of the oracle yields: http://www.thinlabs.com/products/thin-clients/aden I have used AXEL thin client terminals and those require a VNC server instance on your server per thin client, for the scenario that it sounds like you're envisioning. It does RDP/VNC but you can get it to do ssh/telnet on a green screen, with several sessions per seat. We've been using Neoware thin clients for a few years now. They run some HP cooked debian version. http://www.hp.com/sbso/busproducts_thinclient.html -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. That sounds like exactly what I need. So, I could set up a Gentoo server and a bunch of completely diskless clients which would all PXE boot from the server? Would the clients basically each control a different virtual terminal on the server? Each machine can pull a copy of the master boot image to make updates a lot simpler. The SystemRescueCD PXE boot mechanism just pushes out a copy of the CD to all the machines to boot them. to update the boot image just update the files in one location to update all machines. the machines act as separate fully functioning machine. Check out http://www.sysresccd.org/Sysresccd-manual-en_PXE_network_booting to see how to setup the PXE boot environment. I think I get it now and it sounds great, exactly what I'm looking for. Everything can be done in RAM, no disks required? Can PXE boot be done wirelessly? Maybe only if the wireless is onboard? I tried to Google this but the info returned is terribly outdated for some reason. Do you think SystemRescueCD is the best boot image for clients that only need a browser? What sort of machine would work well as a client? Should I just put together a bunch of motherboards with onboard video and ethernet, CPUs, RAM, PSUs, and small cases? Is there a prebuilt system that works well for this? Maybe an ARM-15 system as Tampa Bay James referenced, although I think that isn't released yet. - Grant Well, the first thing you need to decide is whether you want each client running that browser locally, or whether you want each client to merely provide an interface to the server, and every user's browser (and every other application) running on the server itself. If your clients boot, then run all their own software locally, your server's under only under load during boot-time and your clients need to be able to handle that work (not much, but it's more than nothing, just try running a modern Firefox on 64MB of ram). On the other hand, if your clients merely boot into a remote connection to the server, a la VNC or NX, the client does *very* little locally, can run on next to nothing hardware-wise (a true 'thin client'), and the entirety of the workload is offloaded to the server. If you want responsive 'eye candy', 3D graphics work/play, or any form of particularly 'smooth' animation, you will want that work to be handled on hardware closer to the user (requiring a far faster processor, more ram, a capable video device, and likely local storage for swap at the least), while serving up a simple browser to the user is far more forgiving. After reading this, my first reaction was to run the browser on the server and have each client connect via VNC/NX. Now that I think about it, I may be better off running the browser locally for simplicity's sake. I always try to keep the number of layers I'm dealing with to a minimum and VNC/NX is one layer I could do without if I beef up the clients a bit. How different would the client hardware requirements be between running the browser locally and running it via VNC/NX? I suppose I could also do without the PXE layer and all of its requirements if I install some sort of minimal storage device (flash drive, SD card, USB key, etc.) into each workstation for the boot image. I could still push updates to the boot image over the network almost as easily as updating the single boot image on the server. What is the benefit of loading SystemRescueCD instead of another monolithic just work distro like Ubuntu? As for wired vs wireless, true hardware PXE booting is generally limited to wired scenarios, but it would be entirely possible (though not truly 'diskless') to deploy a minimal kernel+initramfs that handles initial booting, joining WiFi, pulling down of the system 'image' from your server, and handing control off to that in the same way your run of the mill kernel+initramfs loads hardware drivers until it can find the harddrive, attaches to the root partition, and hands off control to init from there. Changes to the wireless configuration would require directly visiting each client, and client-side kernel or initramfs updates easily could as well, if things don't go as planned (but, since all the user-side software is either run on the server or loaded from it at boot-time, changes to the client's loader shouldn't be frequent). It sounds like I should stick with ethernet for simplicity's sake. There's also the option of pre-made hardware thin clients that typically boot from internal flash and simply provide a remote interface to a central server (though most are geared towards RDP or Citrix), and some are even WiFi capable. A pre-made thin client could be the way to
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On 07/13/2011 12:38 PM, Grant wrote: I suppose I could also do without the PXE layer and all of its requirements if I install some sort of minimal storage device (flash drive, SD card, USB key, etc.) into each workstation for the boot image. I could still push updates to the boot image over the network almost as easily as updating the single boot image on the server. snip It sounds like I should stick with ethernet for simplicity's sake. Yeah, PXE on the wire is the place to start if you want to boot across the network. Start simple. Just get a handful of similar NICs and you should be set. There's also the option of pre-made hardware thin clients that typically boot from internal flash and simply provide a remote interface to a central server (though most are geared towards RDP or Citrix), and some are even WiFi capable. A pre-made thin client could be the way to go. Do you know of any that are geared toward open protocols? Quick query of the oracle yields: http://www.thinlabs.com/products/thin-clients/aden I have used AXEL thin client terminals and those require a VNC server instance on your server per thin client, for the scenario that it sounds like you're envisioning. It does RDP/VNC but you can get it to do ssh/telnet on a green screen, with several sessions per seat.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. That sounds like exactly what I need. So, I could set up a Gentoo server and a bunch of completely diskless clients which would all PXE boot from the server? Would the clients basically each control a different virtual terminal on the server? Each machine can pull a copy of the master boot image to make updates a lot simpler. The SystemRescueCD PXE boot mechanism just pushes out a copy of the CD to all the machines to boot them. to update the boot image just update the files in one location to update all machines. the machines act as separate fully functioning machine. Check out http://www.sysresccd.org/Sysresccd-manual-en_PXE_network_booting to see how to setup the PXE boot environment. I think I get it now and it sounds great, exactly what I'm looking for. Everything can be done in RAM, no disks required? Can PXE boot be done wirelessly? Maybe only if the wireless is onboard? I tried to Google this but the info returned is terribly outdated for some reason. Do you think SystemRescueCD is the best boot image for clients that only need a browser? What sort of machine would work well as a client? Should I just put together a bunch of motherboards with onboard video and ethernet, CPUs, RAM, PSUs, and small cases? Is there a prebuilt system that works well for this? Maybe an ARM-15 system as Tampa Bay James referenced, although I think that isn't released yet. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. That sounds like exactly what I need. So, I could set up a Gentoo server and a bunch of completely diskless clients which would all PXE boot from the server? Would the clients basically each control a different virtual terminal on the server? Each machine can pull a copy of the master boot image to make updates a lot simpler. The SystemRescueCD PXE boot mechanism just pushes out a copy of the CD to all the machines to boot them. to update the boot image just update the files in one location to update all machines. the machines act as separate fully functioning machine. Check out http://www.sysresccd.org/Sysresccd-manual-en_PXE_network_booting to see how to setup the PXE boot environment. I think I get it now and it sounds great, exactly what I'm looking for. Everything can be done in RAM, no disks required? Can PXE boot be done wirelessly? Maybe only if the wireless is onboard? I tried to Google this but the info returned is terribly outdated for some reason. Do you think SystemRescueCD is the best boot image for clients that only need a browser? What sort of machine would work well as a client? Should I just put together a bunch of motherboards with onboard video and ethernet, CPUs, RAM, PSUs, and small cases? Is there a prebuilt system that works well for this? Maybe an ARM-15 system as Tampa Bay James referenced, although I think that isn't released yet. - Grant Well, the first thing you need to decide is whether you want each client running that browser locally, or whether you want each client to merely provide an interface to the server, and every user's browser (and every other application) running on the server itself. If your clients boot, then run all their own software locally, your server's under only under load during boot-time and your clients need to be able to handle that work (not much, but it's more than nothing, just try running a modern Firefox on 64MB of ram). On the other hand, if your clients merely boot into a remote connection to the server, a la VNC or NX, the client does *very* little locally, can run on next to nothing hardware-wise (a true 'thin client'), and the entirety of the workload is offloaded to the server. If you want responsive 'eye candy', 3D graphics work/play, or any form of particularly 'smooth' animation, you will want that work to be handled on hardware closer to the user (requiring a far faster processor, more ram, a capable video device, and likely local storage for swap at the least), while serving up a simple browser to the user is far more forgiving. As for wired vs wireless, true hardware PXE booting is generally limited to wired scenarios, but it would be entirely possible (though not truly 'diskless') to deploy a minimal kernel+initramfs that handles initial booting, joining WiFi, pulling down of the system 'image' from your server, and handing control off to that in the same way your run of the mill kernel+initramfs loads hardware drivers until it can find the harddrive, attaches to the root partition, and hands off control to init from there. Changes to the wireless configuration would require directly visiting each client, and client-side kernel or initramfs updates easily could as well, if things don't go as planned (but, since all the user-side software is either run on the server or loaded from it at boot-time, changes to the client's loader shouldn't be frequent). There's also the option of pre-made hardware thin clients that typically boot from internal flash and simply provide a remote interface to a central server (though most are geared towards RDP or Citrix), and some are even WiFi capable. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
[gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
Grant emailgrant at gmail.com writes: After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. Hello Grant, You have similar goals as I do. In addition to what you are doing I'm planning on managing thousands of embedded devices, remotely, for controls purposes. The new ARM-15 chip is suppose to be an Intel Killer in both the server space and workstation space. It is also is going to be the chip for 3D video and multi-head devices, such as you purport to building in your other emails. TI is very aggressive on the ARM-15 chips based mother boards. Embedded Gentoo runs on the panda board, thanks to Armin76! http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/?part=4chap=9 I'm not sure you can wait a few more months, but, in my research the ARM-15 based devices are going to make significant inroads into many areas. http://www.slashgear.com/ti-omap-5-outed-twin-cortex-a15-cores-kinect-style-tracking-more-07131324/ hth, James
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards, monitors, and mice simultaneously. It would basically be a way to have the functionality of multiple workstations but the administration hassle of only a single system. Wireless communication between the computer and each keyboard-monitor-mouse would be most convenient, but that may not be possible so wired would be fine. Does something like this exist? - Grant Does this fantasy-arrangement of mine exist? I guess what I'm after is a series of dumb terminals to connect to a local Gentoo system so I don't need to manage a series of Gentoo systems. - Grant Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. That sounds like exactly what I need. So, I could set up a Gentoo server and a bunch of completely diskless clients which would all PXE boot from the server? Would the clients basically each control a different virtual terminal on the server? No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. That's hilarious. :) - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. Hello Grant, You have similar goals as I do. In addition to what you are doing I'm planning on managing thousands of embedded devices, remotely, for controls purposes. The new ARM-15 chip is suppose to be an Intel Killer in both the server space and workstation space. It is also is going to be the chip for 3D video and multi-head devices, such as you purport to building in your other emails. TI is very aggressive on the ARM-15 chips based mother boards. Embedded Gentoo runs on the panda board, thanks to Armin76! http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/?part=4chap=9 I'm not sure you can wait a few more months, but, in my research the ARM-15 based devices are going to make significant inroads into many areas. http://www.slashgear.com/ti-omap-5-outed-twin-cortex-a15-cores-kinect-style-tracking-more-07131324/ Thanks James. Would ARM-15 machines be a good match for PXE booting? I'm thinking I just need something minimal so the ARM-15 might be a great choice if I understand it correctly. It wouldn't matter that it runs Gentoo since my clients would be diskless, right? I'm still trying to get my mind around this. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. That sounds like exactly what I need. So, I could set up a Gentoo server and a bunch of completely diskless clients which would all PXE boot from the server? Would the clients basically each control a different virtual terminal on the server? Each machine can pull a copy of the master boot image to make updates a lot simpler. The SystemRescueCD PXE boot mechanism just pushes out a copy of the CD to all the machines to boot them. to update the boot image just update the files in one location to update all machines. the machines act as separate fully functioning machine. Check out http://www.sysresccd.org/Sysresccd-manual-en_PXE_network_booting to see how to setup the PXE boot environment. No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. That's hilarious. :) - Grant Thanks. A friend shared that with me. -- No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
James Wall wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Grantemailgr...@gmail.com wrote: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. That's hilarious. :) - Grant Thanks. A friend shared that with me. I post some of Neil's sig lines to my wall on facebook. A lot of them are pretty neat. What gets me tho is when one of them applies to the topic he is replying too. I know on a couple occasion Neil has even mentioned it himself. Keep em coming Neil. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards, monitors, and mice simultaneously. It would basically be a way to have the functionality of multiple workstations but the administration hassle of only a single system. Wireless communication between the computer and each keyboard-monitor-mouse would be most convenient, but that may not be possible so wired would be fine. Does something like this exist? - Grant Does this fantasy-arrangement of mine exist? I guess what I'm after is a series of dumb terminals to connect to a local Gentoo system so I don't need to manage a series of Gentoo systems. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards, monitors, and mice simultaneously. It would basically be a way to have the functionality of multiple workstations but the administration hassle of only a single system. Wireless communication between the computer and each keyboard-monitor-mouse would be most convenient, but that may not be possible so wired would be fine. Does something like this exist? - Grant Does this fantasy-arrangement of mine exist? I guess what I'm after is a series of dumb terminals to connect to a local Gentoo system so I don't need to manage a series of Gentoo systems. - Grant Have you considered using PXE to network boot your systems? you can have various configurations set up based on mac addresses to address different hardware issues. I recommend trying out SystemRescueCD to experiment with PXE booting for the client and server. -- No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
[gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
The 06/07/11, Grant wrote: After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. I maintain multiple Gentoo we mostly use as KVM hosts systems (and coming embedded routers). As KVM hosts, some of them are very sensible. Due to the contracts to our customers, I have to do with various update strategies on top of various hardware. Thanks to everyone for some very juicy tidbits. I'm rearranging my thinking on all of this. I think the key for me may be to combine systems with separate functions in the same physical location into a single system. Does the KVM thing work well? KVM itself works very well here, even with advanced features such as KSM pages sharing. The difficulties come with Microsoft products for both good integration and perfomance (I would recommend RAW format, iSCSI or plain physical partition instead of qcow2, for example). That beeing said, I finally have all working well for XP, NT2003 and 2008 servers. I use libvirt on top of KVM which is in the way to become very good AFA you don't rely on libvirt's API which tend to move a lot. Running a bunch of workstations as nothing more than wireless KVM setups on the same system? I should be able to cut my Gentoo systems down to just a few. Basically one at each physical location. I would be much sceptical for both workstations and wireless guests than for servers: 1) For workstations, things are currently changing with the very recent and not much usable with Gentoo, yet spice software. I expect a lot of improvments in the coming months for this use case. I would say it's not ready for production, yet. 2) About wireless virtualization it's highly depending on what you aim to do, especially if you intend to use the PCI passthrough feature to give your wireless card to a guest. For this to work, you MUST have your hardware (CPU, motherboard and PCI card) VT-d compatible which is currently NOT a piece of cake, today. It relies on industry and manufacturers moving not as fast as software. I would expect more widely VT-d cards in the coming _years_. Now, if you intend to use the wireless card from you hosts and share networks using bridge utilities it _MAY_ be OK: Linux bridging does not always work with all wireless cards (see http://tinyurl.com/ylcutwv for more information). In a more general approach, when I hear routers and wireless I'm more thinking _embedded_. KVM/qemu would only help you to build your target systems. For embedded (or tiny, at least) systems, I would not use LXC. The drawback with Gentoo is that the current official uclibc stage3 for embedded/tiny systems is obsolete and marked as experimental. In facts, it's very _hard_ if not impossible to use it these days. Making your own cross-compilation environment is not a piece of cake (too), even with dedicated tools such as crossdev. This topic would ask its own book. So, if you want to try Gentoo embedded save your time by working on unofficial stage3. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. I maintain multiple Gentoo we mostly use as KVM hosts systems (and coming embedded routers). As KVM hosts, some of them are very sensible. Due to the contracts to our customers, I have to do with various update strategies on top of various hardware. Thanks to everyone for some very juicy tidbits. I'm rearranging my thinking on all of this. I think the key for me may be to combine systems with separate functions in the same physical location into a single system. Does the KVM thing work well? KVM itself works very well here, even with advanced features such as KSM pages sharing. The difficulties come with Microsoft products for both good integration and perfomance (I would recommend RAW format, iSCSI or plain physical partition instead of qcow2, for example). That beeing said, I finally have all working well for XP, NT2003 and 2008 servers. I use libvirt on top of KVM which is in the way to become very good AFA you don't rely on libvirt's API which tend to move a lot. Running a bunch of workstations as nothing more than wireless KVM setups on the same system? I should be able to cut my Gentoo systems down to just a few. Basically one at each physical location. I would be much sceptical for both workstations and wireless guests than for servers: 1) For workstations, things are currently changing with the very recent and not much usable with Gentoo, yet spice software. I expect a lot of improvments in the coming months for this use case. I would say it's not ready for production, yet. 2) About wireless virtualization it's highly depending on what you aim to do, especially if you intend to use the PCI passthrough feature to give your wireless card to a guest. For this to work, you MUST have your hardware (CPU, motherboard and PCI card) VT-d compatible which is currently NOT a piece of cake, today. It relies on industry and manufacturers moving not as fast as software. I would expect more widely VT-d cards in the coming _years_. Now, if you intend to use the wireless card from you hosts and share networks using bridge utilities it _MAY_ be OK: Linux bridging does not always work with all wireless cards (see http://tinyurl.com/ylcutwv for more information). In a more general approach, when I hear routers and wireless I'm more thinking _embedded_. KVM/qemu would only help you to build your target systems. For embedded (or tiny, at least) systems, I would not use LXC. The drawback with Gentoo is that the current official uclibc stage3 for embedded/tiny systems is obsolete and marked as experimental. In facts, it's very _hard_ if not impossible to use it these days. Making your own cross-compilation environment is not a piece of cake (too), even with dedicated tools such as crossdev. This topic would ask its own book. So, if you want to try Gentoo embedded save your time by working on unofficial stage3. -- Nicolas Sebrecht I think I'm guilty of assumption regarding your original reference to KVM. I assumed you mean keyboard-video-mouse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch but now I think you meant Kernel-based Virtual Machine: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page And now that I look more closely at KVM switches, it looks like they provide a method of controlling multiple computers via a single keyboard, monitor, and mouse. I need sort of the inverse. I'd like to control a single Gentoo computer via multiple sets of keyboards, monitors, and mice simultaneously. It would basically be a way to have the functionality of multiple workstations but the administration hassle of only a single system. Wireless communication between the computer and each keyboard-monitor-mouse would be most convenient, but that may not be possible so wired would be fine. Does something like this exist? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. I maintain multiple Gentoo we mostly use as KVM hosts systems (and coming embedded routers). As KVM hosts, some of them are very sensible. Due to the contracts to our customers, I have to do with various update strategies on top of various hardware. Thanks to everyone for some very juicy tidbits. I'm rearranging my thinking on all of this. I think the key for me may be to combine systems with separate functions in the same physical location into a single system. Does the KVM thing work well? Running a bunch of workstations as nothing more than wireless KVM setups on the same system? I should be able to cut my Gentoo systems down to just a few. Basically one at each physical location. - Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple Gentoo systems
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 03:14:38PM -0700, Grant wrote: After a frustrating experience with a Linksys WRT54GL, I've decided to stick with Gentoo routers. This increases the number of Gentoo systems I'm responsible for and they're nearing double-digits. What can be done to make the management of multiple Gentoo systems easier? I think identical hardware in each system would help a lot but I'm not sure that's practical. I need to put together a bunch of new workstations and I'm thinking some sort of server/client arrangement with the only Gentoo install being on the server could be appropriate. I maintain multiple Gentoo we mostly use as KVM hosts systems (and coming embedded routers). As KVM hosts, some of them are very sensible. Due to the contracts to our customers, I have to do with various update strategies on top of various hardware. I've set up a private Gentoo mirror in order to follow updates nicely (all customers want to update slowly). Well, it's not a true mirror. To be able to upgrade old systems, I do private releases of Gentoo approximately once a month. A full mirror of all releases would be too much data. So, I only fetch portage tree and packages from a list I maintain manually (emerge sucks at that game, by the way). Data is stored on a nilfs filesystem to improve snapshots size on disk. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
