Ethan Quach wrote: > > Jean McCormack wrote: >> Dave Miner wrote: >>> Jean McCormack wrote: >>>> Jens Deppe wrote: >>>>> Hi Jean, >>>>> >>>>> One comment inline... >>>>> >>>>> On 05/21/09 14:19, Jean McCormack wrote: >>>>>> Progress Reporting: >>>>>> >>>>>> The output to the console to reflect the progress of the >>>>>> auto-install should be of the format: >>>>>> >>>>>> (pseudo progress bar) High level description of current functionality >>>>>> >>>>>> Example (general idea, wording is not exact) : >>>>>> >>>>>> (.....................) Discovering available services >>>>>> (..... ) Choosing service >>>>>> >>>>>> The .'s indicate percentage completion. This means we have a >>>>>> dependency upon IPS to supply size information for the packages. >>>>>> A return is only implemented when the install moves from one major >>>>>> block of functionality to the next. Otherwise, the text is >>>>>> overwritten with updates to the dots to indicate progress. >>>>>> >>>>>> The use of virtual console was considered as a possibility if a >>>>>> more detailed progress >>>>>> is required. Preliminary investigation indicates that this >>>>>> currently is not in our microroot and would >>>>>> be too large to include there. >>>>> Please consider enabling the log file to be retrieved/accessed >>>>> remotely. Simply exposing it via an http service would be a *big* >>>>> help. Especially when installing systems remotely. >>>> Does this meet your needs? >>>> >>>> The log file will also be written to the AI server at >>>> /var/ai/client_logs/ip_address/install_log. >>>> >>> I'd be thinking about this being configurable, and putting it outside >>> of a BE-enclosed path so as not to exacerbate our existing >>> space-management issues in /var. >>> >>> Dave >>> >> We did discuss making this configurable. The issue with that was >> related to the fact that we have to do the service discovery and >> service choosing before we get the manifest with configuration >> information in it. If the user would like to see the log before that >> time, they wouldn't find it in their configurable path. Any suggestions? > > Making it configurable per client seems like overkill --would that > add any value? Why not just make it configurable as a server-side > configuration, if configurable at all. >
The client shouldn't need to know it, at all. I suspect there's a hidden assumption here that you're going to use NFS? That wouldn't work with the WAN environments AI means to support... Dave
