A different way of installing Fedora

Kevin Martin ktmdms at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 01:42:50 UTC 2013

On 09/25/13 20:38, David wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 9:33 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> On 26/09/13 13:26, David wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2013 9:13 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
>>>> On 09/25/2013 05:45 PM, David wrote:
>>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:19 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
>>>>>> Several of my machies have SATA hot swap ports.
>>>>>> These make it easy to use smaller drives as backup media.
>>>>>> When RC4 came out I installed it on a 4 TB drive using an
>>>>>> older E6550 machine.  At my leisure I added lots of apps
>>>>>> and libs that I normally use.
>>>>>> Then I slipped that drive in my omen.com server and changed
>>>>>> the boot order to boot that drive.  I changed hostname and
>>>>>> domainname, restored some of my control files, and omen.com
>>>>>> was back on the air relatively quickly.
>>>>>> I was fortunate this procedure worked as netinst was unable to
>>>>>> install RC4 while running on the server.
>>>>>> This "trick" depends on Fedora apparently being able to make modest
>>>>>> adjustments to the machine environment on boot up.
>>>>>> Is this a valid procedure?
>>>>> A "valid procedure?"
>>>>> Hmm..
>>>>> Sounds like a eclectic procedure and situation to me.
>>>> My concern is wether this procedure results in a kernel that is
>>>> less optimized for the CPU it is running on than if Fedora had
>>>> been installed directly on that machine.
>>>> I don't know enough about Fedora installation to know what,
>>>> if any, processor related optimizations are made in the install
>>>> instead of boot time.
>>> More clearly said? Name two other people with your situation please.
>> This a procedure, that I might like to do something like.
>> I have a working F19 installation on a box with a Haswell processor.  It
>> would be good if I could clone that, boot the clone on a box with an
>> older Intel processor (though also a quad core 64 bit processor) and
>> make minor changes.
>> I suspect that there will be more than 3 people interested.
>> Cheers,
>> Gavin
> Well. Than answers that then. You now have a somewhat limited eclectic
> 'circle jerk'. Enjoy.
Sounds like he is trying to do a Linux equivalent of Ghost...I see no reason for all of the negativity.  If you have enough machines
that are enough alike to be able to clone drives and install them on other machines and then make some very minor changes to get
them running, I say go for it.  You could even put a script on the primary drive that you then run on the cloned drives after
install that asks you questions about hostname/ip/etc. and finishes the configuration for you.  Should be an easy way to provision
boxes it seems to me.


More information about the test mailing list