Anyone have any experience getting ghost to do a successful image with CentOS, Fedora, or RHEL? It worked great with RH9, but now a days I find it nearly impossible to get it to work properly. Any tips would be helpful. We spin up a large number of servers on a weekly basis and it would be nice to just be able to image them. Thanks, -Drew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051003/26a59037/attachment-0002.html>
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 09:32 -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:> Anyone have any experience getting ghost to do a > successful image with CentOS, Fedora, or RHEL? It worked great with > RH9, but now a days I find it nearly impossible to get it to work > properly. Any tips would be helpful. We spin up a large number of > servers on a weekly basis and it would be nice to just be able to > image them. > > > > Thanks, > > -Drew >If you are not using any third party software maintaining a a yum repository instead of spinning images may be an alternative for you. Even with third party stuff with the proper QA procedures you should not have any issues. If you have supported copy of ghost taking the issue up with Symantec would be for the betterment of the community at large. Regards, Ted
How about Partimage? http://www.partimage.org/ -Pete Drew Weaver wrote:> Anyone have any experience getting ghost to do a successful > image with CentOS, Fedora, or RHEL? It worked great with RH9, but now a > days I find it nearly impossible to get it to work properly. Any tips > would be helpful. We spin up a large number of servers on a weekly basis > and it would be nice to just be able to image them. > > > > Thanks, > > -Drew > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> > >Message: 28 >Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:22:40 -0500 >From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [CentOS] Symantec ghost and CentOS 3.4/4.0 >To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> >Message-ID: <1128356560.29433.17.camel at moola.futuresource.com> >Content-Type: text/plain > >On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 11:06, Ted Kaczmarek wrote: > >>><SNIP> >>> >Or, if the machines are close to identical including the drives, just >use dd to copy the whole disk. It's slow in real-time but takes very >little human time. ><snip> > >With proper use of the bs= parameter to dd, it can be very fast. Just need to watch out that the jobs the node is doing at that time are not unacceptably degraded, since we don't have a preemptive scheduler (? I think... haven't been paying atention the last year or so.) yet. Using a blockisize that takes advantage of cache sizes (several levels of these) would be optimal, but the 80/20 rule seems to apply here. So I always just use a block size that is a cylinder (not really a cyl, but who knows what they really are these days?) based on the HD parameters. What's really important is not the size, but the reduction in number of system calls. Anyway, not a major issue, but since I luv dd (and ed and other old time real *IX stuff) I didn't want it to get a bad rap! ;)> -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com >Bill