3 ms·

Thanks for the response. I will certainly research these items. Unfortunately, I do need native performance. My workstation runs a 5960X, 256 GB RAM, x4 GTX 98

by gt_ 9y ago

Thanks for the response. I will certainly research these items. Unfortunately, I do need native performance. My workstation runs a 5960X, 256 GB RAM, x4 GTX 980 Tis, a stack of SSDs and I use all of it regularly. I’m very curious about this PXE solution. I am googling now. If anyone has pointers on methods that fit my needs, I would be gracious. Thanks! UPDATE: Reading the Wikipedia on PXE suggests to me I would be using one of the Microsoft deployment solutions. I messed with these a littleand it felt like cutting bread with a chainsaw. It sort of worked but, on top of many known bugs, it it was designed for big deployments, prioritizing hundreds of features and admin relationships that I have no need for. Maybe I’m looking at the wrong thing, but it’s pretty hard to tell. My general goal in my scripting solution was to automate out the Windows annoyances like UAC, bloatware, registry configs, and software installation. I learned how to do that with scripting and it seems predictable even after OS updates, and I can modify it very easily. It has a few run-all directories for quick mods, and some .jsons with config data. I made an install USP that puts a script on my desktop which installs git, pulls my setup repo down and runs it, downloading files needed from my google drive... just to give a picture of what worked. It takes about the length of a lunch break to run and I’m back in action, with exception of a few licensed softwares that I chose not to automate. I’m still interested in learning better solutions.

devereaux 9y ago
With a large storage space, once your installation is done, from a linux: cat /dev/sde3 > /storage/windows-vr-installation.bin Then when the install dies for some reason, restore it with: cat /storage/windows-vr-installation.bin > /dev/sde3 You will say it is inefficient. Maybe. On an optane 900, the burst write speed will be decent enough. Keeping .bin images that are a few Tb is not really a problem with modern setup (zfs, raid, etc.) I know there are commercial solutions doing that, but I wouldn't bother much with that. A simple free software setup will end up being more efficient if you know some basics. If I were you, I really wouldn't bother more than that with automation for reinstalls. You are not deploying to N identical devices (in which case the above trick may still work by having sufficiently similar workstations, and a special licensing scheme - I often buy a few similar laptops for the same reason). Regarding native performance, since being able to reconfigure windows quickly seems very important, if I were you I would do a GPU passthrough. KVM on computers with VT-d etc offers near native performance. That's what gamers do, and I trust them for their insane attention to fps performance :-) It may take some time for the initial tweaking (recompiling kernels, selecting some hardware etc) but it very possible, and also very stable. And it is more and more common. (disclamer: I sell such solutions, and do various weird things for my clients -- including supporting Wine when their need for a very stable solution is greater than the costs of the time I will bill them + the specific hardware I will have them buy to guarantee the speed of the results)
- gt_ 9y ago
  Thanks the response! It makes sense. It sounds like a similar result operationally to using something like Macrium for a master image backup. This is something I wanted to prevent because modifying that master image backup on a regular basis is such a task. With my scripting solution, it's just editing a few json files. My working environment is constantly changing, especially these days. My preferences also change as I optimize my workflows. My thoughts were to use the approach of For each change in implementation, make a change in code. The other important thing, to me, is that I am free to install any wacky software I may need to try without worrying what it's doing to my system. Something like intermittent backups will lead to accumulation of garbage files when doing this. And if I choose to adopt the software, I add it to my setup package. How do I modify the VM on a regular basis? I trust the input but maybe my understanding is limited by lack of context. I wish I could find a decent training source on this.
  - devereaux 9y ago
    If your environment is changing every few day, just do a snapshot when you think the new environment is better. Keep a few snapshots to be able to go back to a previous image - like after installing some wacky software. When you overwrite the image, it will revert to the previous state, that's guaranteed :-) I also lack the context to recommend you a better solution. I do not like adding complexity unless it is needed. Hard drives are cheap. It may not worth the hassle to do something more complicated. Honestly, if the above is sufficient, don't even bother with a VM at first. Just reboot to Linux when you need to go back to a given image. It will take a few minutes, half an hour top, and you're good to go. A VM makes sense if you are short on space for the snapshot AND you would benefit from it -- like if you are doing half your work in Linux anyway, or if you have some specific security constraints. It could also be because you can't even tolerate the minutes it take to restore an image. Setting a VM with GPU passthrough/eGPU/kvm/Windows hosts/etc. is very tricky, especially when performance matters. I can't point you to a training source because it depends so much on the situation -- and it's evolving quickly too. If you want training or a dedicated solution, I offer results oriented consulting services. Let me know your email and we can discuss a solution more tailored to your specific situation - I will recommend a specific setup, get it running for you, and train you on how to use and change it, so that you don't end up needing me after that.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Please don't treat UAC as an 'annoyance' or convey to anyone the truly insane idea it should be disabled. UAC should for all intents and purposes just be called 'basic security'. Every other OS does what UAC does, which is creating a basic elevation/isolation for system management functions. It's the equivalent of why a Linux box refuses to do certain things unless you are root. You should never, ever shut off UAC.
- gt_ 9y ago
  I'm not looking for a fight here, but I plead innocent to your accusations. I would not suggest I am any authority on the subject; quite the contrary. I have found it annoying, but I won't take responsibility for that. If I am ignorant, it's not due to a lack of interest or effort. I have tried researching it on the web and found: 1) No justification for keeping it enabled on my workstation. 2) A myriad of don't ask why beratements like yours which cause one to wonder if the author is more interested in belittling others or helping them. I never assumed the warnings were wrong, but they were not helpful. The impositions of UAC on my workstation were severe and I never found an explanation that addressed why I need it. If I obeyed the warnings of every computer safety expert, I would not even have a workstation to begin with. In life, one must choose their battles. I'm doing my best over here. At risk of being attacked and down-voted again ,I'll ask a few questions if you don't mind: In my experience using Linux, I could just type 'sudo' and be root. As far as I can tell, this does not protect as much as impose a level of mindfulness. What am I missing? If Windows UAC serves an equivalent purpose, why are the consequences so much more severe?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Linux was fundamentally well built for one. There's a lot of things that should be protected from even without UAC that aren't. With UAC disabled it is trivially easy for any number of system exploits that are easily preventable. I suspect many 'don't ask why' responses at this point come from the fact that we can probably no longer wrap our heads around all the possible ways you can be screwed with UAC disabled. (If anything, I am mostly still surprised Microsoft permits you to shut it off.) In Linux you don't just type sudo, you also enter your password. In a best case scenario, you should have a different account for administrative actions as your normal use, but for both Linux and Windows the elevation requirement ensures that a program meant to run on your computer can not silently and suddenly make changes to your computer. If your computer is not connected to the Internet, or you know the contents of every single block of code on every application your computer runs, this is not a problem, but for most people, this is the bedrock of basic security: That if something wants to make a system level change to your computer you must explicitly permit it to do so.

by gt_ 9y ago

devereaux 9y ago

With a large storage space, once your installation is done, from a linux: cat /dev/sde3 > /storage/windows-vr-installation.bin Then when the install dies for some reason, restore it with: cat /storage/windows-vr-installation.bin > /dev/sde3 You will say it is inefficient. Maybe. On an optane 900, the burst write speed will be decent enough. Keeping .bin images that are a few Tb is not really a problem with modern setup (zfs, raid, etc.) I know there are commercial solutions doing that, but I wouldn't bother much with that. A simple free software setup will end up being more efficient if you know some basics. If I were you, I really wouldn't bother more than that with automation for reinstalls. You are not deploying to N identical devices (in which case the above trick may still work by having sufficiently similar workstations, and a special licensing scheme - I often buy a few similar laptops for the same reason). Regarding native performance, since being able to reconfigure windows quickly seems very important, if I were you I would do a GPU passthrough. KVM on computers with VT-d etc offers near native performance. That's what gamers do, and I trust them for their insane attention to fps performance :-) It may take some time for the initial tweaking (recompiling kernels, selecting some hardware etc) but it very possible, and also very stable. And it is more and more common. (disclamer: I sell such solutions, and do various weird things for my clients -- including supporting Wine when their need for a very stable solution is greater than the costs of the time I will bill them + the specific hardware I will have them buy to guarantee the speed of the results)

gt_ 9y ago
Thanks the response! It makes sense. It sounds like a similar result operationally to using something like Macrium for a master image backup. This is something I wanted to prevent because modifying that master image backup on a regular basis is such a task. With my scripting solution, it's just editing a few json files. My working environment is constantly changing, especially these days. My preferences also change as I optimize my workflows. My thoughts were to use the approach of For each change in implementation, make a change in code. The other important thing, to me, is that I am free to install any wacky software I may need to try without worrying what it's doing to my system. Something like intermittent backups will lead to accumulation of garbage files when doing this. And if I choose to adopt the software, I add it to my setup package. How do I modify the VM on a regular basis? I trust the input but maybe my understanding is limited by lack of context. I wish I could find a decent training source on this.
- devereaux 9y ago
  If your environment is changing every few day, just do a snapshot when you think the new environment is better. Keep a few snapshots to be able to go back to a previous image - like after installing some wacky software. When you overwrite the image, it will revert to the previous state, that's guaranteed :-) I also lack the context to recommend you a better solution. I do not like adding complexity unless it is needed. Hard drives are cheap. It may not worth the hassle to do something more complicated. Honestly, if the above is sufficient, don't even bother with a VM at first. Just reboot to Linux when you need to go back to a given image. It will take a few minutes, half an hour top, and you're good to go. A VM makes sense if you are short on space for the snapshot AND you would benefit from it -- like if you are doing half your work in Linux anyway, or if you have some specific security constraints. It could also be because you can't even tolerate the minutes it take to restore an image. Setting a VM with GPU passthrough/eGPU/kvm/Windows hosts/etc. is very tricky, especially when performance matters. I can't point you to a training source because it depends so much on the situation -- and it's evolving quickly too. If you want training or a dedicated solution, I offer results oriented consulting services. Let me know your email and we can discuss a solution more tailored to your specific situation - I will recommend a specific setup, get it running for you, and train you on how to use and change it, so that you don't end up needing me after that.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Please don't treat UAC as an 'annoyance' or convey to anyone the truly insane idea it should be disabled. UAC should for all intents and purposes just be called 'basic security'. Every other OS does what UAC does, which is creating a basic elevation/isolation for system management functions. It's the equivalent of why a Linux box refuses to do certain things unless you are root. You should never, ever shut off UAC.

gt_ 9y ago
I'm not looking for a fight here, but I plead innocent to your accusations. I would not suggest I am any authority on the subject; quite the contrary. I have found it annoying, but I won't take responsibility for that. If I am ignorant, it's not due to a lack of interest or effort. I have tried researching it on the web and found: 1) No justification for keeping it enabled on my workstation. 2) A myriad of don't ask why beratements like yours which cause one to wonder if the author is more interested in belittling others or helping them. I never assumed the warnings were wrong, but they were not helpful. The impositions of UAC on my workstation were severe and I never found an explanation that addressed why I need it. If I obeyed the warnings of every computer safety expert, I would not even have a workstation to begin with. In life, one must choose their battles. I'm doing my best over here. At risk of being attacked and down-voted again ,I'll ask a few questions if you don't mind: In my experience using Linux, I could just type 'sudo' and be root. As far as I can tell, this does not protect as much as impose a level of mindfulness. What am I missing? If Windows UAC serves an equivalent purpose, why are the consequences so much more severe?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Linux was fundamentally well built for one. There's a lot of things that should be protected from even without UAC that aren't. With UAC disabled it is trivially easy for any number of system exploits that are easily preventable. I suspect many 'don't ask why' responses at this point come from the fact that we can probably no longer wrap our heads around all the possible ways you can be screwed with UAC disabled. (If anything, I am mostly still surprised Microsoft permits you to shut it off.) In Linux you don't just type sudo, you also enter your password. In a best case scenario, you should have a different account for administrative actions as your normal use, but for both Linux and Windows the elevation requirement ensures that a program meant to run on your computer can not silently and suddenly make changes to your computer. If your computer is not connected to the Internet, or you know the contents of every single block of code on every application your computer runs, this is not a problem, but for most people, this is the bedrock of basic security: That if something wants to make a system level change to your computer you must explicitly permit it to do so.