Dave Miner wrote:
> Evan Layton wrote:
>> Dave Miner wrote:
>>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>>> Problem statement:
>>>>
>>>> 1) A method is needed to match the OS version the AI server is
>>>> running on with
>>>> the OS version being installed.
>>>
>>> As Ethan noted, you mean "client" here.
>>
>> Yes that's correct. It probably should have be something more like
>> "the OS version being installed on the client".
>>
>>>
>>>> Note: There is currently information being logged which shows
>>>> this but it's not used for anything.
>>>> 2) A method of determining which OS version can support installions of
>>>> which OS versions is needed.
>>>> 3) This is something that the user should not have to keep track of
>>>> and should be maintained internally. Should incompatibilities be
>>>> documented so that users can at least look up why we're telling
>>>> them
>>>> that they have incompatible OS versions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the part that's missing here is providing means to limit the
>>> incompatibility set. For example, installing an updated version of
>>> pkg into the installation environment once booted, or other software
>>> that we might need.
>>
>> OK so this is an additional requirement that all the needed packages
>> and their proper versions are installed on the client. In other words
>> all the correct packages corresponding to the version of the "entire"
>> package are installed on the client?
>>
>
> I don't think that's quite what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that
> the client be capable of dynamically adapting itself to run the
> versions of executables required to correctly install a particular
> version of the software.
This seems like a good overall goal to have, but my concerns about this
are that the executables required might not be limited enough in scope
to be able to effectively do this. I would think we would need to have
an understanding of how many versions we would be willing to be 'off' or
what/how many executables would need to change to make this work.
Just allowing an 'open' dynamic updating of the client seems too
unpredictable.
>
>>>
>>> Also, let's not forget that it's not just AI that we might want to
>>> do this with; the various interactive installers are likely to grow
>>> options (such as installing from a repository) which make this an
>>> issue for them, too.
>>
>> Right, Ethan also mentioned that this should really say "package
>> based installs" not AI.
>>
>
> I think limiting it to package-based is still too narrow, in that the
> completion operations associated with an image-based installation
> would seem to have similar issues. I realize that you can't
> necessarily design a solution for something that's not yet specified,
> but think it should be examined as far as we can right now to
> hopefully make the solution applicable for both.
>
I have been thinking about this in regard to the replication and
recovery project. The way I have been thinking about this is:
-When we create a 'copy' of a system we create a bootable iso that
contains(at a very high level):
-An 'archive' of that system.
-The installer that will be used to 'install/re-install' the archive
on to systems.
-This implies, to me, that the iso is self contained and that the
versioning issues wouldn't be possible as with a booted client and a
repository installation. The installer would manage the post install
completion operations.
Of course, there is a fair amount of hand waving going on here with
regard to how we build the iso and the installer that is included on the
iso. I think that the versioning issues that Evan is working on still
apply at some level. In that I need to be able to figure out what
version the system being 'copied' is running, so that I can correctly
create the iso and installer to handle that version.
If we allow for an OpenSolaris system 'archive' to be installed from
another mechanism besides the created iso(that is we only create the
'copy' of the system not the iso, then yes, the versioning issues apply
with regard to the booted client and the archive we are trying to
'install'. In particular if we use zfs send/receive or we allow for
'incremental' copying of a system(even if zfs send/receive isn't used).
It is my thought that the iso would be something that can be bootable
both local and over a net, and capable of handling multiple installs of
systems at at time.
thanks,
sarah
*****
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
