Thank you both for the replies. On Thursday 24 May 2012 11:44:32 Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > Hi Julian, > > I agree with Michael here, I think we should look into defaulting based > on auto-discovered information rather than creating the concept of > profile or group which would still mean manual data entry.
I think you both misunderstood slightly here. I agree with what you are saying but you missed the point - you can't discover power parameters like that (AFAIK). What I am talking about here is rack/subnet-specific things outside of the node's hardware. > But we should probably leave this for after we introduce the hardware > database (which we want for better Juju constraints). For that sort of defaulting, I completely agree. > On 12-05-24 07:20 AM, Michael Hughes wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > > > Agreed that a 'default' template would make scaling much faster, but > > rather than assuming one would set up multiple subnets for different > > hardware types I'd recommend looking into DMI queries to automatically > > determine machine type. I'd not want to mandate a subnet for each harware type. > > The Capone plugin over at the FOG project is an excellent example of > > how to implement this: > > http://www.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php?title=Plugins:_Capone#Using_Capon > > e > > > > and > > http://www.fogproject.org/wiki/index.php?title=Capone Thanks for the pointers. J -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maas-devel Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maas-devel More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
