Hi Mark I have no idea what ITIL means, but would probably prefer to keep > it that way :)
actually it is not that bad, the section of ITIL "Information Technology Infrastructure Library" that is related to this thread can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_Management_%28ITSM%29 a standard that forces use of specific and commercial packages > is not a standard at all... It does not, it is how different vendors interpret/present it differently to managers.Commercial vendors are known to have better PR than OSS projects, one exception i have seen lately is Zenoss which is riding the ITIL wave too :) none of those require any node-local changes. as I mentioned, nfs-root > solves many of them, though it's common to use ldap/nis/AD. it's uncommon > to change the NFS mounts on a compute node, but also quite easy to change > the fstab and then something like "pdsh -a mount -a" > I do like nfs-root, and I am advocating for it some problem with nfs-root are the following 1- dependency:if the nfs server goes down, all nodes will be affected by this at least waiting for it until it comes back, probably if i use the same netapp filer that host the users data, and applications, then i can argue if the filer has a problem or has to go down, the system follows 2- What if the file that was changed on the server was wrong, all cluster nodes, if not all clusters will see the same mistake I would be interested on other ways of distributing configurations files safely, and in a timely manner. regards Walid
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
