THX, helps a lot On 17.08.2013 15:09 Gene Cumm wrote:> Can you deal with a client taking 1-4 minutes to just fetch files? If > not, you will have a performance issue. >Unfortunally not, the performance issue is known )-:> > Where does startrom.0 come from? Some Windows file? >I don't know, it is build by the company where we get the .nbis from> > So planning to direct load of kernel/initrd files or use MEMDISK? >Use of MEMDISK as standard and for mass production. kernel/memdisk will be only used for non critical software, but this can change each day.> >> - the "standard" .iso will grow to 60MB or more > > I don't know any tftpd that can't handle this (albeit slowly). >The performance will be the problem. For now we have for more than 50 boots (25 MB images) at the same time a significant performance problem, if additional assets boot there can be a stop until the first assets have finished their booting, independent of the tftp implementation. So i will get rid of tftp.>> - switch from TFTP to HTTP (at least for the .isos) >> - must be live for production at all locations at the 1st of April 2014 > > That's quite a bit of time away. Any idea how much testing needs to > be completed first?(-: the syslinux-part is less than 1/5th of the changings I have to do; and it is not visible to the end users, they expect a running and fast system.> >> Unfortunally i will get next week the first 60MB.iso for testing. > > For a first run at this time, I'd consider gpxelinux.0 from 4.07 or > perhaps 5.01/5.02-pre3/5.11-pre9 and keep an eye on bug #19 ( > http://bugzilla.syslinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19 ) for possibly > switching to lpxelinux.0.Yes, makes sense. I think I will use gxpelinux.0 from 4.07 or 4.05 for "quick and dirty" boot and have the 5.1x with gpxelinux.0 or lpxelinux.0 in the lab and testing phase. bye Christoph>
Christoph Hanle schreef op 17-8-2013 18:08:> I think I will use gxpelinux.0 from 4.07 or 4.05 for "quick and dirty" > boot and have the 5.1x with gpxelinux.0 or lpxelinux.0 in the lab and > testing phase.Wouldn't iPXE be an option? It might have a couple of menu options nowadays, like Syslinux always has had. http://ipxe.org/wimboot Bernd
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Bernd Blaauw <bblaauw at home.nl> wrote:> Christoph Hanle schreef op 17-8-2013 18:08: > >> I think I will use gxpelinux.0 from 4.07 or 4.05 for "quick and dirty" >> boot and have the 5.1x with gpxelinux.0 or lpxelinux.0 in the lab and >> testing phase. > > Wouldn't iPXE be an option? It might have a couple of menu options nowadays, > like Syslinux always has had. > http://ipxe.org/wimbootAs long as replacing vesamenu.c32 with iPXE's menu is acceptable. I'm uncertain if it can provide a graphical user interface (GUI), as opposed to a text-only user interface (TUI). Yet another alternative is building/downloading ipxelinux.0. If building it, you could even use the precompiled pxelinux.0 binary. This would allow for any module (including ldlinux.c32) to be retrieved from an httpd. -- -Gene
On 17.08.2013 18:22 Bernd Blaauw wrote:> Christoph Hanle schreef op 17-8-2013 18:08: > >> I think I will use gxpelinux.0 from 4.07 or 4.05 for "quick and dirty" >> boot and have the 5.1x with gpxelinux.0 or lpxelinux.0 in the lab and >> testing phase. > > Wouldn't iPXE be an option? It might have a couple of menu options > nowadays, like Syslinux always has had. > http://ipxe.org/wimbootIn theory: yes, but for now i don't know how to implement ipxe with the same (menue) functions i have on the existing systems. I have not yet an understanding how to implement this. bye Christoph> _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com > Unsubscribe or set options at: > http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux > Please do not send private replies to mailing list traffic. >