On 01/08/14 at 13:55 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:37:28 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> > wrote: > >On 31/07/14 at 08:17 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:02:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> > >> wrote: > >> > Kadeploy is a scalable, efficient and reliable deployment system (cluster > >> > provisioning solution) for cluster and grid computing. It provides a set > >> > of > >> > tools for cloning, configuring (post installation) and managing cluster > >> > nodes. > >> > It can deploy a 300-nodes cluster in a few minutes, and also supports > >> > authorizing users to initiate their own nodes deployments (including with > >> > concurrent deployments). > >> > >> What does it do better/differently than existing tools like FAM? > > > >Which FAM are you talking about? > > I apologize. My brain meant to type FAI, my fingers thought > differently.
Ah, sorry. I could have guessed that :-) Tools such as FAI & Kickstart on one hand, and Kadeploy/CloneZilla on the other hand, are quite different solutions to achieve a similar result. FAI and Kickstart rely on an installation process (even if not debian-installer's): packages are extracted, installed and configured. Kadeploy and CloneZilla rely on cloning: you install and configure one system first, then create an image from it, and copy this image to the other systems. Cloning has several advantages over FAI/Kickstart: - Cloning can provide you with a byte-identical copy of the first system (if you copy the raw disk, or use tools such as e2image) - Cloning is faster, since you don't need to execute installation/configuration scripts - Cloning scales better (hundreds/thousands of systems), as you can easily use efficient schemes to broadcast all the data to nodes - Cloning is distribution-agnostic, and quite OS-agnostic One important advantage of FAI/KickStart over cloning-based approaches is that one can easily do per-system configuration (e.g. select packages based on the system's role, based on classes). However, I wonder if the inclusion of such a feature is not justified by the fact that it predates the massive use of configuration management systems such as Puppet. If FAI was to be redesigned today, I wonder if it wouldn't leave all the configuration part to a config management system. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140801143123.ga16...@xanadu.blop.info