On 2/9/07, Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:43:16 +0200 "Alexandru Mincu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My setup will look like this: > big server with 2 or 3 gigabit ethernet cards and lots of sata drives in a > big raid array. > disk less workstations with 512mb or 1gb of ram, nvidia or integrated video > and a gigabit ethernet card. > and of course a gigabit ethernet switch. Hm. Are those "diskless" workstations supposed to be thin clients (i.e. just displays for applications running on the big iron)? Probably not, I guess. So your "big iron" will probably be a file server. For serious productive work either virtualize the web-, mail- and calender servers or even better make them separate machines. It's easier to maintain the pieces when each of them has its own environment. You'll also need a lot of CPU power on the main rig just for getting the needed throughput.
Yes i am not thinking about thin clients as in X client only ... I am thinking about mounting / as NFS. Tanks for the servers tip ... I will try to use different machines where possible if not then Xen/Vmware/whatever else If you're going to go that road, I would suggest to offer your client
terminals access to a common, NFS read-only shared root and individual shares for home directories. Make a testing environment and regularly make it the new root if it has proven to be stable. Always remember that the common root file system is now a single point of failure for the whole company's productivity.
The single point of failure is a problem but when you think that most people just use their local hard drives to store sensitive data and start complaining when their hard disk fails I think it's not a big issue ... If the fonds will give me the possibility I will make 2 different servers with synchronization(if it's possible .. haven't thought about that yet) and switch to backup when needed.
First of all let's start with the clients... > I am a Gnome fan and I think it is better and simpler to use, but them if > you have windows users that you want to put to use linux, kde might be a > better option... although this is a matter of taste I would accept some > suggestions(without killing each other here), bu please take in > consideration all the things i want to add. I don't think it's a big issue. Maybe others have more experience in maintaining a common desktop environment in larger environments. > Things required: > Email, > Calendar sharing, > IM, > Office suite, > other bullshit managers use to put you to work(suggestions accepted here) :) > Web browsing, > A content management system Should be possible in one way or another. > I also think that some eye candy would be gr8 to have ... I tried both > compiz and beryl, but none were stable for me... it's true i was using > nvidia's beta driers but anyway. have any of you tried compiz or beryl? > which one is really stable and ready to use for a company? Is the > Xgl+(compiz|beryl) variant stable? I for one really liked beryl's features > but it seems to be more unstable than compiz. Hm, I don't know what kind of company we're talking about, but is this really a mission critical issue? I think my boss would be scared and thinking "heck, this guy has to much time for playing, let's give him more work" -- but hey, I'm german and probably not supposed to have fun at work :-)
Yes well I am from Romania and if your boss dosen't kow shit about computers then he will be impressed by the eye candy :)
Now for updates .. which profile do you think would better suit a company .. > should I use hardend gentoo? Is there a version of gentoo that keeps things > down with the upgrades to stable packages or I should keep my own tree and > sync only the stuff I want and test into it? > Now the nice part, > What about the disk less clients? is there a way to keep a stable file > system for all the workstations without requiring to copy all the base files > for each workstation? It would be nice to be able to dynamical add > workstations to the network without requiring admin intervention... > From what I have seen in the gentoo diskless faq it suggested doing an > separate dir for each client in the network.... I would suggest to share the full root file system read-only by NFS (i.e., probably just a chroot environment in which you maintain a client-specific environment). It will be a bit of a PITA to get the configuration for each specific client done in a sane way (writable, client-specific NFS unionfs mount onto /etc and /var?) but easier than maintaining N copies of the same stuff on the same RAID (after all, you said "diskless clients", right?).
right
What are the good points in using the system instead of using MS Windows > (besides the money)? They can't ever fire you. Really. They would lose productivity _and_ data.
well i won't be hired there .. but I could not louse the support contract :)
PS: Excuse my English. Not that this means anything, but since I think I understood every single word, I'd say it's excellent :-)
Thanks. -hwh
-- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
-- Alexandru Mincu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tel: +40745515505/+40723573761
