Hi,
this is not a development topic, but worth thinking about it.
If you look for pros/cons of using FAI (see
http://www.zaik.uni-koeln.de/~paper/unzip.html?file=zaik2010-603.pdf,
http://www.slideshare.net/henningsprang/automated-installations-and-infrastructure-management-with-fai-presentation),
FAI is compared to do no automation at all. My customer is currently using system imaging and a think this is a quite
widespread installation method (tools like: system imager, clonezilla, mkcdrec or mondo rescue). So what I need are good
arguments for using FAI instead of system imaging.
To start with, here is what I think are good reasons for using FAI (Ok, it sounds a bit like an FAI evangelist and some
arguments are used twice):
- Documented installation (No "Golden Image")
Fully documented installation from scratch.
No undocumented image tweaks.
- Reproducible installation (No "Nasty Tweaks")
Scripted installation procedure.
Automatically documented.
- Tailored Installations (No "Unused Leaks")
Customize installation depending on software requirements.
Customize installation depending on hardware requirements.
- Manageable Installations (No "Unknown Redo")
Control, compare and save your installation configurations.
Integrate with configuration management.
- Secure Installations (No "Virus Reproduction")
No reproduction of security leaks.
Simple update and up to date installations.
Regards
Karl
