Hi I have searched the site, list archives, google etc and have not been able to find an appropriate answer so I am asking it here. Apologies if this has been answered already. I have a kiosk-style pc which I wish to remote boot to keep it quiet. This way I don't need a hard disk at all, keeping it truly silent as it has a passive cpu cooler. Unfortunately, it has no upgrade options. I am unable to add any expansion cards, etc. It has a PXE stack built-in but this is an "Intel LANDesk Service Agent II version 0.99h". As this machine is very old, I have been unable to find a firmware upgrade for it so I'm a bit stuck. I have noticed that the Intel 0.99 PXE stacks are notoriously buggy and the recommendation is to upgrade but this is currently impossible. However, I am willing to bend over backwards on the other end to get this working. Basically, I have a spare machine that is very noisy but I can put in a different room and run as a headless server to drive the kiosk pc. The kiosk will then run LTSP or equivalent, keeping all of the heavy processing on the well-powered server. The kiosk pc would be the only remote client, keeping the network load down. I am prepared to run any free-as-in-beer os on the server and any services required but unfortunately, as I wish to run the kiosk pc on the same wireless subnet as the rest of the house, I can't keep it truly separate. There is a web/ftp/file/mail/etc server on the network (OpenBSD), a hardware NAT firewall protecting me from the perils of the internet, and two ordinary client machines (Mac OSX and a multi-boot x86). Basically, as I cannot fix the 0.99h client firmware, is what I want to attempt even worth trying? Are there any particular gotcha's for 0.99h clients I ought to know and any specific versions of software (other than the latest) I should stick to? As I am flexible on host OS for the server, are there any particular recommendations for ones more likely to work or easier to use for this task? Sorry for asking a lot of questions in one email. Thanks in advance. -Michael
> I have a kiosk-style pc which I wish to remote boot to keep it quiet. > This way I don't need a hard disk at all, keeping it truly silent as it > has a passive cpu cooler. Unfortunately, it has no upgrade options. I am > unable to add any expansion cards, etc. It has a PXE stack built-in but > this is an "Intel LANDesk Service Agent II version 0.99h". As this > machine is very old, I have been unable to find a firmware upgrade for > it so I'm a bit stuck. > > I have noticed that the Intel 0.99 PXE stacks are notoriously buggy and > the recommendation is to upgrade but this is currently impossible.Check wheter your card is supported by Etherboot or not. If it is supported try this: - chainload etherboot (.zpxe Images) or - modify the bios so that it includes the Etherboot code. For an AWARD Bios you need a tool called cbrom, for an AMI Bios a tool called amibcp. Cheers Alex
Michael Quaintance wrote:> > Basically, as I cannot fix the 0.99h client firmware, is what I want to > attempt even worth trying? Are there any particular gotcha's for 0.99h > clients I ought to know and any specific versions of software (other > than the latest) I should stick to? As I am flexible on host OS for the > server, are there any particular recommendations for ones more likely to > work or easier to use for this task? >See the website (http://syslinux.zytor.com): - Turn off the blksize option ("-r blksize" if you're using tftp-hpa) - Disable path MTU discovery - Use the same machine as DHCP and TFTP server You may need to experiment with/without the PXE magic options. With that, 0.99h *ought* to work. -hpa
As I am a firmware engineer for a living, I am strongly opposed to unofficial firmware updates and I dislike performing official ones. I have had too many updates of my own code go wrong for unexpected reasons! Having checked the PCI device ID under Windows, the on-board network card _is_ supported under Etherboot (Intel 8255x, PCI dev id 0x1229). Is chainloading Etherboot from PXE likely to be more or less problematic than using a known buggy 0.99h for PXELINUX all the way? Thanks to you, Alex, and hpa for your very useful and exceptionally quick answers. Hopefully my home touch-screen MP3 player will be running soon. :) -Michael
Michael Quaintance ha scritto:> As I am a firmware engineer for a living, I am strongly opposed to > unofficial firmware updates and I dislike performing official ones. I > have had too many updates of my own code go wrong for unexpected reasons! > > Having checked the PCI device ID under Windows, the on-board network > card _is_ supported under Etherboot (Intel 8255x, PCI dev id 0x1229). > Is chainloading Etherboot from PXE likely to be more or less problematic > than using a known buggy 0.99h for PXELINUX all the way?Well, using a native etherboot driver as second-stage loader will completely discard the PXE driver of your NIC.... so if you get the second stage loader loaded by your buggy NIC, it will ignore PXE stack and proceed on his own... it is a nice last-resort solution... -- Paolo Salvan _______________________________ X v i s i o n Via Vigonovese 123A 35127 - Padova - Italy +39 049 8709427 tel +39 049 8709426 fax www.xvision.it