| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:43:16 +0200 |
| 4 |
"Alexandru Mincu" <mincua@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> My setup will look like this: |
| 7 |
> big server with 2 or 3 gigabit ethernet cards and lots of sata drives in a |
| 8 |
> big raid array. |
| 9 |
> disk less workstations with 512mb or 1gb of ram, nvidia or integrated video |
| 10 |
> and a gigabit ethernet card. |
| 11 |
> and of course a gigabit ethernet switch. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Hm. Are those "diskless" workstations supposed to be thin clients (i.e. |
| 14 |
just displays for applications running on the big iron)? Probably not, |
| 15 |
I guess. So your "big iron" will probably be a file server. For serious |
| 16 |
productive work either virtualize the web-, mail- and calender servers |
| 17 |
or even better make them separate machines. It's easier to maintain the |
| 18 |
pieces when each of them has its own environment. You'll also need a |
| 19 |
lot of CPU power on the main rig just for getting the needed throughput. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you're going to go that road, I would suggest to offer your client |
| 22 |
terminals access to a common, NFS read-only shared root and individual |
| 23 |
shares for home directories. Make a testing environment and regularly |
| 24 |
make it the new root if it has proven to be stable. Always remember |
| 25 |
that the common root file system is now a single point of failure for |
| 26 |
the whole company's productivity. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> First of all let's start with the clients... |
| 29 |
> I am a Gnome fan and I think it is better and simpler to use, but them if |
| 30 |
> you have windows users that you want to put to use linux, kde might be a |
| 31 |
> better option... although this is a matter of taste I would accept some |
| 32 |
> suggestions(without killing each other here), bu please take in |
| 33 |
> consideration all the things i want to add. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I don't think it's a big issue. Maybe others have more experience in |
| 36 |
maintaining a common desktop environment in larger environments. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Things required: |
| 39 |
> Email, |
| 40 |
> Calendar sharing, |
| 41 |
> IM, |
| 42 |
> Office suite, |
| 43 |
> other bullshit managers use to put you to work(suggestions accepted here) :) |
| 44 |
> Web browsing, |
| 45 |
> A content management system |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Should be possible in one way or another. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> I also think that some eye candy would be gr8 to have ... I tried both |
| 50 |
> compiz and beryl, but none were stable for me... it's true i was using |
| 51 |
> nvidia's beta driers but anyway. have any of you tried compiz or beryl? |
| 52 |
> which one is really stable and ready to use for a company? Is the |
| 53 |
> Xgl+(compiz|beryl) variant stable? I for one really liked beryl's features |
| 54 |
> but it seems to be more unstable than compiz. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Hm, I don't know what kind of company we're talking about, but is this |
| 57 |
really a mission critical issue? I think my boss would be scared and |
| 58 |
thinking "heck, this guy has to much time for playing, let's give him |
| 59 |
more work" -- but hey, I'm german and probably not supposed to have fun |
| 60 |
at work :-) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> Now for updates .. which profile do you think would better suit a company .. |
| 63 |
> should I use hardend gentoo? Is there a version of gentoo that keeps things |
| 64 |
> down with the upgrades to stable packages or I should keep my own tree and |
| 65 |
> sync only the stuff I want and test into it? |
| 66 |
> Now the nice part, |
| 67 |
> What about the disk less clients? is there a way to keep a stable file |
| 68 |
> system for all the workstations without requiring to copy all the base files |
| 69 |
> for each workstation? It would be nice to be able to dynamical add |
| 70 |
> workstations to the network without requiring admin intervention... |
| 71 |
> From what I have seen in the gentoo diskless faq it suggested doing an |
| 72 |
> separate dir for each client in the network.... |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
I would suggest to share the full root file system read-only by NFS |
| 75 |
(i.e., probably just a chroot environment in which you maintain a |
| 76 |
client-specific environment). It will be a bit of a PITA to get the |
| 77 |
configuration for each specific client done in a sane way (writable, |
| 78 |
client-specific NFS unionfs mount onto /etc and /var?) but easier than |
| 79 |
maintaining N copies of the same stuff on the same RAID (after all, you |
| 80 |
said "diskless clients", right?). |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
> What are the good points in using the system instead of using MS Windows |
| 83 |
> (besides the money)? |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
They can't ever fire you. Really. They would lose productivity _and_ data. |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
> PS: Excuse my English. |
| 88 |
|
| 89 |
Not that this means anything, but since I think I understood every |
| 90 |
single word, I'd say it's excellent :-) |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
-hwh |
| 94 |
-- |
| 95 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives