http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/DesignDocs/Adding+support+to+your+PXE+provisioning+software+in+CloudStack+Baremetal
a brief introduction for integrating your PXE provisioning software into CloudStack baremetal > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Zhang [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Baremetal thoughts > > > On 06/25/2012 02:25 PM, David Nalley wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Frank Zhang > > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> You may have known CloudStack has baremetal support in 2.2.14, > > >> let's call > > it baremetal1. > > >> Baremetal1 uses PING(Partimage Is Not Ghost) to do image > > >> provisioning, > > now I am working on designing baremetal2 which would support kickstart > > installation and security group(for Linux). > > >> I am also choosing a better PXE provisioning software to replace > > >> PING, > > now Razor comes into my mind http://nickapedia.com/2012/05/21/lex- > > parsimoniae-cloud-provisioning-with-a-razor/. > > >> > > >> Any thoughts are welcome. > > >> > > > > > > So the immediate project that jumps to mind is Cobbler, but there > > > are licensing issues with inclusion. > > > Razor itself is nice and looks fascinating, but it boots a Linux > > > image for initial inventory - is that a problem? (Same problem as > > > PING) > > > http://puppetlabs.com/blog/introducing-razor-a-next-generation-provi > > > si oning-solution/ I suppose we could not ship the bootable image, > > > but that seems a bit broken. > > > > I think it is more or less inevitable that the user/cloud installer > > has to do a bit more then just run "install my cloud on this cluster". > > However, I do not see this an an issue for the project. This is where > > "integrators" can differentiate themselves. What the project should > > provide is god documentation about the setup, and the things that need > > to be in the rudimentary PXE boot image that gets shipped to the box > > on which the cloud node is to be installed. This doc should also > > contain the configuration of the rudimentary image. > > > > Regardless of the licensing issue, I don't think the project would > > want to ship such a rudimentary image. > > Emm, this could be a solution in terms of license. For user's convenience, we > shipped the rpm ourselves so people can complete all installation in one line > command. > However, if it's against Apache license, we have to ask people to setup that > software themselves. > > > > > My $0.02 > > Robert > > > > -- > > Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU > > SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX > > Tech Lead > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > 781-464-8147 > >
