On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista <alanoe(a)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