> 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. >
- A single configuration *for your entire network*. In one of my networks I'm running at least 14 different servers - that would require 14 different images. - Softupdates: Changing the configuration does not require reinstallation. And probably many many more. Best, Michael
pgpbzMtcBMsdN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
