FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-02-2010, 12:28 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/29/2010 08:57 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
> distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
> containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel). Disk1
> would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
> do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.

This is quite a good idea. I am also tempted to consider moving all
multilib stuff from x86_64 into the second disk.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 12:33 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/30/2010 01:42 AM, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> thats not true. A bare metal install will finish before your livecd has
>> finished booting.
>
> Sure, pedantically you are no doubt correct even though I have no idea
> what a 'bare metal install' means in this context.

to me, 'a bare metal' install is where its just the bios, pxe into a
pre-established install set ( via a ks.cfg ) - Also, rebooting before a
machine gets deployed in a 'role' is actually very highly recommended.
Install images and run-time images are never guaranteed to be identical.

>> .. and you lose any/all management ability from the standard
>> distro-aware tools. Ofcourse, that does not matter if you don't need
>> those tools anyway.
>
> Also here I don't really know what you mean. Though yes, LiveCD
> installations are presently still less flexible in several ways than the

management tooling like cobbler/spacewalk/theforeman/existing and
established install -> deployment tools etc.

> But what I'm describing are things I'd like to experiment with building,
> and present as experimental options and ideas to this list in the
> future. Absolutely off-topic as far as the obvious priority #1 of this
> list at the moment. So... never mind for now.

Sounds good, and I look forward to trying out some of these things. Over
the next few months, lets try and see if we can create hooks in the
centos build process that allows such 'alternatives' to be built in sync
with the main distro. Were going to trial something very basic for the
LiveCD stuff this time.

- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 01:05 AM
"Morten P.D. Stevens"
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

010/12/2 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org>:
> On 11/29/2010 08:57 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
>> distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
>> containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel). Disk1
>> would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
>> do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.
>
> This is quite a good idea. I am also tempted to consider moving all
> multilib stuff from x86_64 into the second disk.

Yes, that's really a good idea.

Best regards,

Morten
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 02:34 AM
Douglas McClendon
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 12/01/2010 07:33 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 01:42 AM, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>>> thats not true. A bare metal install will finish before your livecd has
>>> finished booting.
>>
>> Sure, pedantically you are no doubt correct even though I have no idea
>> what a 'bare metal install' means in this context.
>
> to me, 'a bare metal' install is where its just the bios, pxe into a
> pre-established install set ( via a ks.cfg ) - Also, rebooting before a
> machine gets deployed in a 'role' is actually very highly recommended.
> Install images and run-time images are never guaranteed to be identical.

Yeah, later I realized you brought up 'bare metal' as opposed to virt,
in relation to your comment about installation-running-os fighting for
io traffic from the cd/usb with the installation data itself. But no, I
was talking bare metal installs as well. And I think I can beat your
270s time. Also, while I'll grant that there are some valid points for
rebooting (though I have ways to mitigate/counter those), your point
about install-images and run-time(installation-os?) images not being
guaranteed to be identical is actually I think exactly wrong for the
case of how fedora's livecd installation works. Fedora's livecd
installation works by literally copying the same rootfs image that was
used to boot the livecd, to the destination partition. Thus they are in
that case, always guaranteed to be identical. Also note, that your
point about livecd/usb boots being slow, had I believe a lot to do with
your perspective of watching particular livecd/usb boots, and how much
work they actually do compared to the installation-os that boots from
the traditional install media. I.e. if you build a custom livecd that
isn't trying to boot up to a full gnome desktop, and instead just boots
up to what we think of as runlevel1, or to runlevel3 of a minimal style
install (just ssh server and yum groupinstallable), you'll find that a
livecd/liveusb can boot up nearly as fast as the traditional install
media. Then, the time savings you get from performing an fs-image copy
style install versus a fs-create+rpm-i*.rpm+otherstuff, more than make
up for the few extra seconds upon boot. In other words, I definitely
think I can make a liveusb minimal sshable-yumable installer that
finishes faster than the same usb booting the traditional installer
doing a traditional equivalent minimal install. And then also a version
that makes the reboot after install completes entirely optional (in
other words, if you want to do it to test the bootloader, you can, but
you don't have to).


>>> .. and you lose any/all management ability from the standard
>>> distro-aware tools. Ofcourse, that does not matter if you don't need
>>> those tools anyway.
>>
>> Also here I don't really know what you mean. Though yes, LiveCD
>> installations are presently still less flexible in several ways than the
>
> management tooling like cobbler/spacewalk/theforeman/existing and
> established install -> deployment tools etc.

Yes, you just got the wrong impression that I was talking about a
replacement installer, not an additional optional/experimental method.

-dmc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org