Re: [gentoo-server] deployment server over NFS, feedback

[Joby Walker]

My experience from doing the same is that NFS is the wrong way to go. 
Portage 2.0.50 supports downloading the .tbz2's via ftp or http.  So I 
build packages (emerge -b) on a build server then daily upload those 
packages via rsync to a server that offers the packages via http 
(apache).  My hosts then use "emerge -g" to install.

jbw

Sancho2k.net Lists wrote:

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