Anyone else running diskless?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Anyone else running diskless?
Yesterday, I figured out how to convert a workstation with a Debian install into a diskless workstation. The way I did it, I got to start off with a fully configured normal local installation, and convert it into a diskless workstation. This was great, because in no time I converted three workstations to diskless.
Here's a how-to I wrote up based on my experience: How I did it: diskless netboot with Debian Etch
I really like the fact that I can start off with a normal local installation and just convert it into a diskless workstation (and back, if I just reverse some steps). In particular, this meant that I could convert my HTPC with all of its tweaks and customizations with minimal effort.
Here's a how-to I wrote up based on my experience: How I did it: diskless netboot with Debian Etch
I really like the fact that I can start off with a normal local installation and just convert it into a diskless workstation (and back, if I just reverse some steps). In particular, this meant that I could convert my HTPC with all of its tweaks and customizations with minimal effort.
I briefly tried running semi-diskless.
It's a gaming rig (windows), but also bootable from a Damn Small Linux usb key, with hdd's set to powerdown after a few minutes inactivity.
Using DSL for websurfing was incredibly silent (no hdd's, semi-fanless PSU stayed fanless, CPU fan stayed at minimum speed).
Worked really well, can't really think why I stopped using it, might try it again when I get a fanless Core2Duo in a few days.
It's a gaming rig (windows), but also bootable from a Damn Small Linux usb key, with hdd's set to powerdown after a few minutes inactivity.
Using DSL for websurfing was incredibly silent (no hdd's, semi-fanless PSU stayed fanless, CPU fan stayed at minimum speed).
Worked really well, can't really think why I stopped using it, might try it again when I get a fanless Core2Duo in a few days.
While this method solves the noise problem, it actually makes your total power consumption worse, since you now need two machines. A better solution for a computer that has plenty of ram is just to find a way of spinning your harddrive down for everything but loading/saving documents. Laptop-mode does something like this, but it turns the disk on briefly every few minutes or so, and makes it worse than if it was on all the time, maybe with some ramdisks and playing with the laptop-mode config this could be fixed... I'll definately give it a try when I get a pc with a decent amount of ram
so then your really not "diskless" then are you?
I wonder how well this would work with one of those wireless NAS enclosures. Put a few large/fast hard drives in a closet someplace, and access them with remote "terminals".
Its sort of a step backwards isnt it? Didnt they do this sort of thing with mainfraims and dummy terminals back in the 70's and 80's?
all this extra work to get rid of hard drive noise, it would be cheeper to just get notebook drives instead.
I wonder how well this would work with one of those wireless NAS enclosures. Put a few large/fast hard drives in a closet someplace, and access them with remote "terminals".
Its sort of a step backwards isnt it? Didnt they do this sort of thing with mainfraims and dummy terminals back in the 70's and 80's?
all this extra work to get rid of hard drive noise, it would be cheeper to just get notebook drives instead.
It's not my fault, it's the standard definition of "diskless workstation".
It's not the same thing as the old days of dumb terminals--although one option for a diskless workstation is indeed to use it as a thin client dumb terminal. The way I'm doing it is that the workstation is a "thick client". It runs all programs locally. The server is just used to access files.
Anyway, it is most definitely CHEAPER than using notebook drives. I was using 2.5" drives before. I also already had a file server before. Switching over to diskless let me remove all of the notebook drives from my Linux workstations. That was great! I shifted them over to being used in a few Windows workstations. The resulting silence was wonderful.
If I had discovered this technique a couple years ago, I probably would never have even bothered with 2.5" drives, and saved myself a bundle of money.
It's not the same thing as the old days of dumb terminals--although one option for a diskless workstation is indeed to use it as a thin client dumb terminal. The way I'm doing it is that the workstation is a "thick client". It runs all programs locally. The server is just used to access files.
Anyway, it is most definitely CHEAPER than using notebook drives. I was using 2.5" drives before. I also already had a file server before. Switching over to diskless let me remove all of the notebook drives from my Linux workstations. That was great! I shifted them over to being used in a few Windows workstations. The resulting silence was wonderful.
If I had discovered this technique a couple years ago, I probably would never have even bothered with 2.5" drives, and saved myself a bundle of money.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:35 pm
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 2674
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:07 am
- Location: Houten, The Netherlands, Europe
Well, that depends on your definition of really bad. I don't think anybody is going to do this for a gaming machine or hoping to win any benchmarks.Longwalker wrote:Disk performance will be really bad without gigabit ethernet, though.
On the other hand, for an average computer used for surfing, mailing and serious work like programming and wordprocessing it will be completely adequate. Ask the millions of office drones working with their data on fileservers.
You'll find there's a pretty big difference between working with a word file stored on a fileserver (where the only time you communicate with the server is when you load or save it) and having your swap space on a seperate machine, as well as all your applications and files. Sure, in a perfect world you'll have enough RAM to not worry about swapping in linux, but try that with a relatively heavyweight application. I suggest you take programming off the list of lightweight tasks, if you don't believe me, try running Websphere Integration Developer. Diskless stations are a great idea and I'd love one, but the tradeoffs are simply too big for me.Tibors wrote:Well, that depends on your definition of really bad. I don't think anybody is going to do this for a gaming machine or hoping to win any benchmarks.Longwalker wrote:Disk performance will be really bad without gigabit ethernet, though.
On the other hand, for an average computer used for surfing, mailing and serious work like programming and wordprocessing it will be completely adequate. Ask the millions of office drones working with their data on fileservers.
You can argue all day about how most people barely stress their systems and you could survive with less speed 90% of the time, but you'll hate that final 10% enough to make this not worthwhile. I'd rather not quadruple load times on my applications and make my swapping take an order of magnitude longer if I don't have to.
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 2674
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:07 am
- Location: Houten, The Netherlands, Europe
I don't know that particular development environment, but there are enough development environments that don't have a bloated IDE over a bloated framework. Because that is the only thing that makes programming a heavy weight task and why I seem to need a faster computer to run MS Visual Studio at work. Coding in C on Linux at home hardly gets my computers memory half full. And if I look at the requirements for Ruby on Rails, which I'm going to try next, if I find the time, then it doesn't look that "hardware eating" either.Azazel wrote:I suggest you take programming off the list of lightweight tasks, if you don't believe me, try running Websphere Integration Developer.
But then again I'm using Zenwalk Linux which is fast and light on the resource requirements, without missing any important features.
Admittedly, there is a difference between programming for a hobby and programming for fun, but I'm getting pretty sick of hearing that all I need to develop is vim or emacs. You can say what you like about how 'bloated' VS, RAD or WID are, but it just so happens that those features happen to be bloody helpful for real development.Tibors wrote:I don't know that particular development environment, but there are enough development environments that don't have a bloated IDE over a bloated framework. Because that is the only thing that makes programming a heavy weight task and why I seem to need a faster computer to run MS Visual Studio at work. Coding in C on Linux at home hardly gets my computers memory half full. And if I look at the requirements for Ruby on Rails, which I'm going to try next, if I find the time, then it doesn't look that "hardware eating" either.Azazel wrote:I suggest you take programming off the list of lightweight tasks, if you don't believe me, try running Websphere Integration Developer.
But then again I'm using Zenwalk Linux which is fast and light on the resource requirements, without missing any important features.
What this diskless setup IS perfect for is HTPCs, IMO. Chances are you'd be down to a single source of noise if done right, or none even if you get a passive cooling case. Plus you could use a smaller enclosure...
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:35 pm
There's a big difference between using remote data and loading applications over a network. A typical wordprocessing file is under 100KB. That's trivial to pull over a network. In contrast, to edit the typical wordproccessing file on Linux, a diskless workstation will have to pull down 100MB+ worth of Openoffice. That's going to take at least 13 seconds but in practice, probably closer to a minute. Loading Openoffice over fast ethernet is about as quick as loading Portable Openoffice off a USB keydrive--that is to say, not very quick at all.Tibors wrote:On the other hand, for an average computer used for surfing, mailing and serious work like programming and wordprocessing it will be completely adequate. Ask the millions of office drones working with their data on fileservers.
Further, the limitations of fast Ethernet can be problematic for multimedia data. For instance, sweeping a large collection of MP3s for track length or ID3 tags would take not minutes but rather hours. This could be an issue for some HTPC applications.
It's better to use a terminal server approach rather than a diskless workstation approach when using fast Ethernet. It's just not fast enough for diskless to be all that useful for modern applications. Diskless at usable speeds requires gig-E.
nice. i'd give it a try if i had a wired LAN. perhaps for a print server but then the old mobos u'd use for that don't have PXE. i'm right in thinking its impossible to get it working with wireless?
So how long does it take to boot up via network, compared to on HDD?
When (fast) CF cards (and the adaptors) are quite cheap though, u may aswell atleast load the OS on a CF card, or most used programs even?
Then u can use windows too if u want.
i'll be resurecting w98 in ram soon too
edit: 1 more post and 500
So how long does it take to boot up via network, compared to on HDD?
When (fast) CF cards (and the adaptors) are quite cheap though, u may aswell atleast load the OS on a CF card, or most used programs even?
Then u can use windows too if u want.
i'll be resurecting w98 in ram soon too
edit: 1 more post and 500
Hi there...back from vacation...
I don't use swap over the network. I'm not sure if that's even possible. My workstations have either 256megs or 512megs of RAM...they have no swap at all. I don't do anything particularly file access intensive on the diskless workstations--I use the file server itself as a "power" workstation instead.
I don't use swap over the network. I'm not sure if that's even possible. My workstations have either 256megs or 512megs of RAM...they have no swap at all. I don't do anything particularly file access intensive on the diskless workstations--I use the file server itself as a "power" workstation instead.
What happens if you use more than your RAM allotment? A WebSphere instance with a test server will blow 2 gigs away, will it simply not open or what? I've never run linux without a swap partition.IsaacKuo wrote:Hi there...back from vacation...
I don't use swap over the network. I'm not sure if that's even possible. My workstations have either 256megs or 512megs of RAM...they have no swap at all. I don't do anything particularly file access intensive on the diskless workstations--I use the file server itself as a "power" workstation instead.
I don't actually know for sure. Things get really unpleasantly sluggish when you start to run out of RAM. I think what happens is that loaded executable code gets "swapped out" even though there's no swap--they already exist on the OS file system, after all. Switching between tasks becomes an unusable thrash-o-rama.
If you really do run out of memory, then I think whatever process was unlucky enough to have a failed "malloc" first will unceremoniously exit (unless it was run from a shell console, in which case it could output an "out of memory" error). This will free up that process's resources.
Of course, if there's one particular memory hog that is gobbling up all the RAM, then that process will most likely fail first or second.
If you really do run out of memory, then I think whatever process was unlucky enough to have a failed "malloc" first will unceremoniously exit (unless it was run from a shell console, in which case it could output an "out of memory" error). This will free up that process's resources.
Of course, if there's one particular memory hog that is gobbling up all the RAM, then that process will most likely fail first or second.
iirc, running puppy (linux) from CD with 128mb ram.. basically (what i think was) running out of memory (offenders being mozilla and their disk mount util) simply lead to the system grinding to a halt. it did recover if u closed the offending app, but its far, far quicker to just restart (ie, getting the mouse to move took several minutes). whereas in windows (atleast 9x) it just leads to a box, stopping u load anything that would push it over the top..
With something like a Puppy Linux LiveCD, the effect of running low on memory is going to be VERY sluggish. The "swapped out" executable code is stored on CD in a compressed form, so the computer needs to constantly reload the code from CD, then decompress it, and then run it.
I don't have experience with Puppy, but my experiences with Knoppix and Mepis on low RAM are like that.
I don't have experience with Puppy, but my experiences with Knoppix and Mepis on low RAM are like that.