On 2/9/07, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:43:16 +0200 > "Alexandru Mincu" wrote: > > > My setup will look like this: > > big server with 2 or 3 gigabit ethernet cards and lots of sata drives in > a > > big raid array. > > disk less workstations with 512mb or 1gb of ram, nvidia or integrated > video > > and a gigabit ethernet card. > > and of course a gigabit ethernet switch. > > Hm. Are those "diskless" workstations supposed to be thin clients (i.e. > just displays for applications running on the big iron)? Probably not, > I guess. So your "big iron" will probably be a file server. For serious > productive work either virtualize the web-, mail- and calender servers > or even better make them separate machines. It's easier to maintain the > pieces when each of them has its own environment. You'll also need a > lot of CPU power on the main rig just for getting the needed throughput. Yes i am not thinking about thin clients as in X client only ... I am thinking about mounting / as NFS. Tanks for the servers tip ... I will try to use different machines where possible if not then Xen/Vmware/whatever else If you're going to go that road, I would suggest to offer your client > terminals access to a common, NFS read-only shared root and individual > shares for home directories. Make a testing environment and regularly > make it the new root if it has proven to be stable. Always remember > that the common root file system is now a single point of failure for > the whole company's productivity. The single point of failure is a problem but when you think that most people just use their local hard drives to store sensitive data and start complaining when their hard disk fails I think it's not a big issue ... If the fonds will give me the possibility I will make 2 different servers with synchronization(if it's possible .. haven't thought about that yet) and switch to backup when needed. > First of all let's start with the clients... > > I am a Gnome fan and I think it is better and simpler to use, but them > if > > you have windows users that you want to put to use linux, kde might be a > > better option... although this is a matter of taste I would accept some > > suggestions(without killing each other here), bu please take in > > consideration all the things i want to add. > > I don't think it's a big issue. Maybe others have more experience in > maintaining a common desktop environment in larger environments. > > > Things required: > > Email, > > Calendar sharing, > > IM, > > Office suite, > > other bullshit managers use to put you to work(suggestions accepted > here) :) > > Web browsing, > > A content management system > > Should be possible in one way or another. > > > I also think that some eye candy would be gr8 to have ... I tried both > > compiz and beryl, but none were stable for me... it's true i was using > > nvidia's beta driers but anyway. have any of you tried compiz or beryl? > > which one is really stable and ready to use for a company? Is the > > Xgl+(compiz|beryl) variant stable? I for one really liked beryl's > features > > but it seems to be more unstable than compiz. > > Hm, I don't know what kind of company we're talking about, but is this > really a mission critical issue? I think my boss would be scared and > thinking "heck, this guy has to much time for playing, let's give him > more work" -- but hey, I'm german and probably not supposed to have fun > at work :-) Yes well I am from Romania and if your boss dosen't kow shit about computers then he will be impressed by the eye candy :) > Now for updates .. which profile do you think would better suit a company > .. > > should I use hardend gentoo? Is there a version of gentoo that keeps > things > > down with the upgrades to stable packages or I should keep my own tree > and > > sync only the stuff I want and test into it? > > Now the nice part, > > What about the disk less clients? is there a way to keep a stable file > > system for all the workstations without requiring to copy all the base > files > > for each workstation? It would be nice to be able to dynamical add > > workstations to the network without requiring admin intervention... > > From what I have seen in the gentoo diskless faq it suggested doing an > > separate dir for each client in the network.... > > I would suggest to share the full root file system read-only by NFS > (i.e., probably just a chroot environment in which you maintain a > client-specific environment). It will be a bit of a PITA to get the > configuration for each specific client done in a sane way (writable, > client-specific NFS unionfs mount onto /etc and /var?) but easier than > maintaining N copies of the same stuff on the same RAID (after all, you > said "diskless clients", right?). right > What are the good points in using the system instead of using MS Windows > > (besides the money)? > > They can't ever fire you. Really. They would lose productivity _and_ data. well i won't be hired there .. but I could not louse the support contract :) > PS: Excuse my English. > > Not that this means anything, but since I think I understood every > single word, I'd say it's excellent :-) Thanks. -hwh > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- Alexandru Mincu Tel: +40745515505/+40723573761