Difference between revisions of "Talk:Diskless system"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Merge looks good; thanks. Section removed.)
m (merge template: unsigned)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Per-host mountpoints (was: Separate /var) ==
 
 
I feel like treating just {{ic|/var}} specially isn't fair. I mean, how would {{ic|/etc}} feel? In all seriousness, I think this needs to be reorganized into something like "per-host special mountpoints". --[[User:Buhman|Buhman]] ([[User talk:Buhman|talk]]) 15:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 
 
: That sounds fine to me, if you want to do that.  I'm pretty sure that {{ic|/var}} contains everything that makes a host unique (or that's the intention), and I'm keen for people to think about it, since it's an added complication that can easily be overlooked when planning the cluster. [[User:Giddie|Giddie]] ([[User talk:Giddie|talk]]) 15:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:: As I tried to imply somewhat, I still don't think its a good idea to do *all* of var, maybe a few application-specific subdirectories. For example it's actually desirable in a non-diskless scenario like this to put /var/cache/pacman on a NFS share--effectively working like a local repository mirror. Only in this scenario, we get that for free :D --[[User:Buhman|Buhman]] ([[User talk:Buhman|talk]]) 16:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 
 
::: Yeah, in my setup I share {{ic|/var/lib/pacman}} between all clients, and {{ic|/var/cache/pacman}} between all clients and the host.  Some other directories in {{ic|/var/cache}} could probably be safely shared, but my general stance is to opt-in to sharing certain directories in {{ic|/var}} for convenience (or storage space), rather than to determine which directories can't safely be shared.  I have no problem with providing suggestions for both points of view ("share all of /var except for certain dirs" vs "/var is node-specific except for certain dirs"); it's helpful for readers to have a chance to consider both views and decide what fits their usecase best. [[User:Giddie|Giddie]] ([[User talk:Giddie|talk]]) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 
 
 
== how to organize ==
 
== how to organize ==
 
Heh, we go back to 3+ articles again? :P We're actually agreeing here I think, but I would say "sub-articles" rather than dedicated articles--[[User:Buhman|Buhman]] ([[User talk:Buhman|talk]]) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 
Heh, we go back to 3+ articles again? :P We're actually agreeing here I think, but I would say "sub-articles" rather than dedicated articles--[[User:Buhman|Buhman]] ([[User talk:Buhman|talk]]) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 18: Line 8:
 
:::: Here is another idea: Instead of one index page for just [[Network Installation Guide]] and [[PXE]], we can add a index page about all of the different installation methods in [[:Category:Getting and installing Arch]]. There are 49 articles in the category, so a good index page can make them stay organized. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 
:::: Here is another idea: Instead of one index page for just [[Network Installation Guide]] and [[PXE]], we can add a index page about all of the different installation methods in [[:Category:Getting and installing Arch]]. There are 49 articles in the category, so a good index page can make them stay organized. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 
::::: This sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Giddie|Giddie]] ([[User talk:Giddie|talk]]) 14:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 
::::: This sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Giddie|Giddie]] ([[User talk:Giddie|talk]]) 14:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Bootstrapping installation ==
 +
 +
Hello,
 +
 +
Should we not include that the network drivers for the client machines be in the MODULES section at /etc/mkinitcpio.conf as [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1321289#p1321289 SOLVED Diskless - ipconfig: no devices to configure] says?
 +
 +
It worked just like a charm for me after hours trying to troubleshoot the network.  --[[User:Gbc921|Gabriel B. Casella]] ([[User talk:Gbc921|talk]]) 21:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
: This isn't something that I ran into, but it sounds very sensible to me, if it is an issue for some. [[User:Giddie|Giddie]] ([[User talk:Giddie|talk]]) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: I tested in two different machines, one with intel (e1000e, if I'm not wrong) and one with Broadcom. Neither recognized them automatically. --[[User:Gbc921|Gabriel B. Casella]] ([[User talk:Gbc921|talk]]) 11:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
::: I had some trouble with driver modules... also I had to add the nfs modules. Not sure if all are needed, but in the end, this worked:
 +
:::: MODULES="igb bnx2 e1000e ixgbe e1000 r8169 virtio_net virtio_blk virtio_pci virtio_ring virtio lockd nfs nfsv4 oid_registry rpcsec_gss_krb5 sunrpc"
 +
:::: [[User:Peetaur|Peetaur]] ([[User talk:Peetaur|talk]]) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
== merge template ==
 +
 +
Re [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Diskless_system&type=revision&diff=446776&oldid=441706]: I have not looked at how much synergies there may be, but [[ISCSI Boot]] is a little unwildy itself with its own related pages [[ISCSI Initiator]] and [[ISCSI Target]]. It is using different packages, etc. I don't have a strong opinion, but to me it looks preferable to keep them separated and, if someone wants to work on merging, perhaps try to merge/crosslink individual sections which are duplicated now. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 19:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 +
 +
:Well, I guess that it might be a good idea to keep them separated and just complement this page with iscsi diskless systems, I have currently 2 arch linux system running diskless over iscsi, it is a lot more stable than the other systems, directly supported by many motherboard or by ipxe/gpxe/etherboot. If I find some time I am gonna make some iscsi related edits .here .... but not today :-) {{unsigned|15:55, 18 August 2016‎|Erm67}}

Latest revision as of 16:47, 18 August 2016

how to organize

Heh, we go back to 3+ articles again? :P We're actually agreeing here I think, but I would say "sub-articles" rather than dedicated articles--Buhman (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, sub-articles does imply that the tasks are basically the same, which I don't think they are. I think they are very different tasks with different purposes, but which happen to share some configuration. No harm in a page that explains which article deals with what, I suppose. I don't feel too strongly about this, really. This is just what makes sense to me. Giddie (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
What would be really cool is if the reading went something like: the user reads about each of the ways that this could be done, then selects what he wants to see (whatever combinations), and then gets a tailored-to-order article with just the stuff he's interested in. --Buhman (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that will be possible on this MediaWiki setup without the kind of duplication we're keen to avoid. Probably best to split out the common stuff into separate articles, and link from an article for each usecase. Giddie (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is another idea: Instead of one index page for just Network Installation Guide and PXE, we can add a index page about all of the different installation methods in Category:Getting and installing Arch. There are 49 articles in the category, so a good index page can make them stay organized. -- Fengchao (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me. Giddie (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bootstrapping installation

Hello,

Should we not include that the network drivers for the client machines be in the MODULES section at /etc/mkinitcpio.conf as SOLVED Diskless - ipconfig: no devices to configure says?

It worked just like a charm for me after hours trying to troubleshoot the network. --Gabriel B. Casella (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't something that I ran into, but it sounds very sensible to me, if it is an issue for some. Giddie (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I tested in two different machines, one with intel (e1000e, if I'm not wrong) and one with Broadcom. Neither recognized them automatically. --Gabriel B. Casella (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I had some trouble with driver modules... also I had to add the nfs modules. Not sure if all are needed, but in the end, this worked:
MODULES="igb bnx2 e1000e ixgbe e1000 r8169 virtio_net virtio_blk virtio_pci virtio_ring virtio lockd nfs nfsv4 oid_registry rpcsec_gss_krb5 sunrpc"
Peetaur (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

merge template

Re [1]: I have not looked at how much synergies there may be, but ISCSI Boot is a little unwildy itself with its own related pages ISCSI Initiator and ISCSI Target. It is using different packages, etc. I don't have a strong opinion, but to me it looks preferable to keep them separated and, if someone wants to work on merging, perhaps try to merge/crosslink individual sections which are duplicated now. --Indigo (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess that it might be a good idea to keep them separated and just complement this page with iscsi diskless systems, I have currently 2 arch linux system running diskless over iscsi, it is a lot more stable than the other systems, directly supported by many motherboard or by ipxe/gpxe/etherboot. If I find some time I am gonna make some iscsi related edits .here .... but not today :-) —This unsigned comment is by Erm67 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2016‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!