Remote Imaging -- Will FOG Work?



  • [quote=“Wayne Workman, post: 42363, member: 28155”]I’m going to take a stab at this question. I’ve been using FOG for about 2 months now, it’s working great.

    So, you don’t want a storage node at each location because of cost.
    My solution to that is to just put a storage node at each location.

    It doesn’t need to be anything fancy. An old dual-core with a gigabit interface will get the job done just fine. You could even go with an old P4 with Hyper Threading. It’d be slower, but still.

    So, my suggestion, is to put in older equipment as storage nodes. Hopefully you already have some older equipment laying around.

    Others may reply with other ideas, but I think this would be better IMHO.[/quote]

    The only equipment we have laying around (mostly) are computers that we use for backup in bad situations. I will speak with my manager about purchasing smaller stations to use for this.

    I guess my biggest misunderstanding is how will I get those computers to connect to my FOG master to get an image? How will everything be connected?

    Here’s what I’m thinking:

    Master connects to storage nodes
    Workstations talk with storage nodes
    Master sends reimage request to storage node
    Storage node reimages workstations

    So, in essence, the storage node handles the PXE/TFTP portion on their end. The master and storage nodes just connect somehow to transfer their information, and I think that is where it gets muddy in my head.

    Do the storage nodes handle the PXE/TFTP, or would that need pushed somewhere else? Also, the DHCP server at each location has no knowledge of the FOG master’s network…is that an issue?



  • I’m going to take a stab at this question. I’ve been using FOG for about 2 months now, it’s working great.

    So, you don’t want a storage node at each location because of cost.
    My solution to that is to just put a storage node at each location.

    It doesn’t need to be anything fancy. An old dual-core with a gigabit interface will get the job done just fine. You could even go with an old P4 with Hyper Threading. It’d be slower, but still.

    Also,
    You should probably point out to your superior how much fuel savings AND bandwidth savings you’d have by putting in a storage node at each location. You could even justify it by replacing 70 select machines with new ones, and re-appropriating the old ones as storage nodes.

    Imagine the slowness of transferring 10 - 40 GB over the internet? How long would that tie up the various location’s internet service for? A day at least? How much productivity time would be lost due to that? What if the connection hiccups? What if two machines (or more) go down at once? How much bandwidth are you going to use up at your central location?

    Others may reply with other ideas, but I think this would be better IMHO.


Log in to reply
 

524
Online

5.5k
Users

12.7k
Topics

119.6k
Posts