3 ms·

That's a very good start, if you install a DHCP server on Linux they usually assume it's because you trying to run a federated thousand machine network, not jus

That's a very good start, if you install a DHCP server on Linux they usually assume it's because you trying to run a federated thousand machine network, not just to stub some initial config values, and so the complexity matches that expectation.. But the biggest pain point remains the whole NFS mess. I'm not sure you can even do something like SELinux over NFS, and even if you could, you still need to configure the right host computer permissions and attributes only for stuff to match on the netbooting machine.

kardianos 9y ago
Netboot is most effective when the system is a minimal system and is configuration driven, see tinycore linux or CoreOS container linux with ignition. NFS is a mess. So design your solutions to not need it. I see no reason why the pixieboot solution isn't something capable of scaling to thousands of machines on a network.
- revelation 9y ago
  I mean, we are in agreement. There are just systems like mobile SoC running platforms like Android where you desperately want some sort of network booting scheme for development because you are constantly rebuilding parts of the software, where the storage options for the part are highly constrained, slow and unreliable (like the RPi) and the performance and architecture necessitate cross-building.
gerdesj 9y ago
"But the biggest pain point remains the whole NFS mess" That's a little unfair. NFS has been around for a very long time and yet it is still modern and being developed. You do have to do things the Unix way to get the most out of it, so you need to get Unix uid/gid standardised across your network for example. Samba's winbind and the rid backend to idmap is a rather easy way to turn AD users into full Unix users with consistent uid/gid. If you get your time, DNS and user IDs right then NFS can be pretty easy and very, very reliable. On modern Unix systems, you also have Samba to play with and other things. Lots of choice and with a bit of thought and research, you will find a decent solution.

kardianos 9y ago

Netboot is most effective when the system is a minimal system and is configuration driven, see tinycore linux or CoreOS container linux with ignition. NFS is a mess. So design your solutions to not need it. I see no reason why the pixieboot solution isn't something capable of scaling to thousands of machines on a network.

revelation 9y ago
I mean, we are in agreement. There are just systems like mobile SoC running platforms like Android where you desperately want some sort of network booting scheme for development because you are constantly rebuilding parts of the software, where the storage options for the part are highly constrained, slow and unreliable (like the RPi) and the performance and architecture necessitate cross-building.

gerdesj 9y ago

"But the biggest pain point remains the whole NFS mess" That's a little unfair. NFS has been around for a very long time and yet it is still modern and being developed. You do have to do things the Unix way to get the most out of it, so you need to get Unix uid/gid standardised across your network for example. Samba's winbind and the rid backend to idmap is a rather easy way to turn AD users into full Unix users with consistent uid/gid. If you get your time, DNS and user IDs right then NFS can be pretty easy and very, very reliable. On modern Unix systems, you also have Samba to play with and other things. Lots of choice and with a bit of thought and research, you will find a decent solution.