Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Question 2: Cobbler TFTP server supports Linux automated installation? Automated installation related kernel options are built in tftpgen.py and Cobbler TFTP server does not use it, it just renders the boot loader configuration file with system blended data.
Question 3: is it worth it to keep Cobbler TFTP server?
Regards, Alan Evangelista
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Great question Alan. From my experience at $previous_job running cobbler sync when you have thousands of records takes a very long time. With the built in cobbler tftp server, there is no sync after flipping the NetBoot boolean. I actually see that feature as a massive edge over Ohad's Foreman for larger installations vs waiting 60 seconds for a sync to complete.
Question 2: Cobbler TFTP server supports Linux automated installation? Automated installation related kernel options are built in tftpgen.py and Cobbler TFTP server does not use it, it just renders the boot loader configuration file with system blended data.
I'm not entirely sure, but we used the snot out of it for a one bootable infra where the is ran in memory and the disks were used for a dumb cache. It was pretty amazing.
Question 3: is it worth it to keep Cobbler TFTP server?
That is a tough question. I genuinely see it as an advantage only cobbler has over "the competition", but it might need a bit more work to match functionality with tftpd. What do you think?
It was originally added to support FreeBSD installs. I'm not sure if it's required for that any longer or if anyone is using it or not.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jeff Schroeder <jeffschroeder@computer.org
wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista < alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Great question Alan. From my experience at $previous_job running cobbler sync when you have thousands of records takes a very long time. With the built in cobbler tftp server, there is no sync after flipping the NetBoot boolean. I actually see that feature as a massive edge over Ohad's Foreman for larger installations vs waiting 60 seconds for a sync to complete.
Question 2: Cobbler TFTP server supports Linux automated installation? Automated installation related kernel options are built in tftpgen.py and Cobbler TFTP server does not use it, it just renders the boot loader configuration file with system blended data.
I'm not entirely sure, but we used the snot out of it for a one bootable infra where the is ran in memory and the disks were used for a dumb cache. It was pretty amazing.
Question 3: is it worth it to keep Cobbler TFTP server?
That is a tough question. I genuinely see it as an advantage only cobbler has over "the competition", but it might need a bit more work to match functionality with tftpd. What do you think?
-- Text by Jeff, typos by iPhone
cobbler-devel mailing list cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cobbler-devel
On 11/23/2014 01:35 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista <alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Great question Alan. From my experience at $previous_job running cobbler sync when you have thousands of records takes a very long time. With the built in cobbler tftp server, there is no sync after flipping the NetBoot boolean. I actually see that feature as a massive edge over Ohad's Foreman for larger installations vs waiting 60 seconds for a sync to complete.
cobbler sync is naive, it writes tftp files for all systems. In Cobbler latest code, sync between Cobbler system object and TFTP server is done incrementally via lite_sync when netboot is enabled/disabled in a Cobbler system object. This decreased much the performance difference between using an external FTP server and Cobbler's own FTP server. This is already available in Cobbler 2.6.
Regards, Alan Evangelista
On Monday, November 24, 2014, Alan Evangelista alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 11/23/2014 01:35 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista < alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Great question Alan. From my experience at $previous_job running cobbler sync when you have thousands of records takes a very long time. With the built in cobbler tftp server, there is no sync after flipping the NetBoot boolean. I actually see that feature as a massive edge over Ohad's Foreman for larger installations vs waiting 60 seconds for a sync to complete.
cobbler sync is naive, it writes tftp files for all systems. In Cobbler latest code, sync between Cobbler system object and TFTP server is done incrementally via lite_sync when netboot is enabled/disabled in a Cobbler system object. This decreased much the performance difference between using an external FTP server and Cobbler's own FTP server. This is already available in Cobbler 2.6.
Why not replace sync with lite_sync entirely?
On 11/24/2014 11:44 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
Why not replace sync with lite_sync entirely?
(1) there is no lite_sync for DHCP server conf file yet, entire file is overwritten and it only happens when cobbler sync is run. Thus, if Cobbler is used to manage DHCP server conf file, sync is still needed. We must improve this.
(2) In daily usage, lite_sync for TFTP content sync should suffice. I'd like to get rid of cobbler sync in the future if possible. In some specific cases, such as manually copying external system json files into cobbler, sync might be helpful, but changing code to make sync run automatically when cobblerd starts would cover this.
Regards, Alan Evangelista
cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org