| 1 |
Greetz, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I've seen the progress being made on a gentoo deployment project, very |
| 4 |
excited to see that developing. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
We're looking at deploying Gentoo on ~40 or so servers right now. We've |
| 7 |
thrown together the idea of a master build server where all packages |
| 8 |
will be built, and then NFS-mounting /usr/portage on the other boxen. |
| 9 |
We have a range of hardware from Pentium3 to Pentium4, some 2x CPU, most |
| 10 |
one CPU though. All common packages such as apache2, mysql, php/mod_php, |
| 11 |
and the like would be built there first and then distributed to the |
| 12 |
servers as needed (they would emerge the tbz2s from thier nfs-mount |
| 13 |
/usr/portage/packages/All directory). Since we are using -mcpu pentium3 |
| 14 |
in the make.conf, our binaries should be portable across p3 and p4 |
| 15 |
platforms, correct? Updates would be handled locally with an emerge |
| 16 |
world, which would rebuild the local server environment still using the |
| 17 |
shared /usr/portage directory. Any holes in these methods? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For initial deployment, the idea is to configure the master server at |
| 20 |
first as we want it and then find a way to build a stage3 tarball from |
| 21 |
it's filesystem. Looking at the info on the Catalyst project though, it |
| 22 |
looks like building stage tarballs for different architectures has to be |
| 23 |
handled more carefully. We may try to create an installation CD that |
| 24 |
uses a properly prepared stage tarball to bootstrap the system and have |
| 25 |
a base installation that is common, neccesary parts. Standard |
| 26 |
configuration files would be stored in a configuration directory of |
| 27 |
/usr/portage/configs (e.g.) and a standard kernel config also available |
| 28 |
there. There was an idea to classify and enforce common config files and |
| 29 |
the like using cfengine (comments on this?) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
We'd also like to figure out the best way to enable a central |
| 32 |
authentication system during this rollout and for future installations |
| 33 |
also. Currently we have MS Active Directory available but may be open to |
| 34 |
using NIS or PAM/Winbind or LDAP to an external directory. Any advice on |
| 35 |
this? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
TIA for any comments/inputs. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
DS |
Archives