Slashdot Mirror
Fedora Project Considering "Stateless Linux"
Havoc Pennington writes "Red Hat developers have been working on a generic framework covering all cases of sharing a single operating system install between multiple physical or virtual computers. This covers mounting the root filesystem diskless, keeping a read-only copy of it cached on a local disk, or storing it on a live CD, among other cases. Because OS configuration state is shared rather than local, the project is called 'stateless Linux.'
The post to fedora-devel-list is here, and a PDF overview is here."
Wow - this is really HUGE project. I mean - it spreads from kernel, through init scritps, through X managers & enviroments to easy to use administration tools. If they suceed this could be really "Linux killer application".
And please all the "NFS root is enough" posts - read the article!
It's really disconcerting for me that practically all the distros want you to have root access even to install a simple MP3 player from their package files; and extremely distrubing that they do it by popping up KDE or Gnome windows asking for root paswords.
Isn't this what we blame microsoft for?
Disk space is cheap enough, we don't need more sharing of config stuff - we need more separation so users can use the benefits of package managers without having to get in the way of other users.
In my experience, then central server crashes anyway and nobody can do anything because they're too tied in already with email internet and logon. Just as long as security is good, and data is backed up very redundantly, I can't see that there would be any greater disadvantage.
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
Posts like:
NFS read-only & shared root is enough
+
LTSP
+
Thin clients
=> please read the article
First, what's so special about this? If you set up a network filing system for your root FS and use LinuxBIOS as your bootable image, you can have a single, central Linux install that is shared with as many computers as you like.
What would be far MORE interesting would be to have a central server with multiple images for different hardware. Then you could boot your nice, shiny IBM mainframe from the same "install" as your desktop PC or the webmaster's Apple Mac.
Another possibility is a massively parallel installer. Basically have one machine on which you are actively installing, but have that machine replicate the write-to-disk operations across the entire network to all the other PCs.
A third option would be to have a distro which set up the entire network as a cluster, but with the config files just on one machine. That way, you don't burden any one machine with having to serve the really heavy-duty stuff, such as applications.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
... to bring a company running thin clients to a grinding halt? Kill the central server... Looks interesting though.... since all config data is stored centrally, it would make sysadmin's lives much easier.
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
Back when mainframes were popular (the first time), they were large, expensive, and consumed lots of power... but in the long run less expensive than putting full workstations on every desk and maintaining local copies of settings, software etc. My personal feeling as to why desktops took off is because, at the time of their introduction, it seemed rediculous to have a mainframe in the home. Local copies were fine since most people only had one computer to worry about. This has changed. People now have multiple computers, or at the very least, constantly transfer info between home and work machines. Now, mainframe power is available cheeply and in a small formfactor... and with the use of broadband increasing, it is becomming more and more popular to rid the home and office of multiple full machines, and replace them with terminals that can connect to a shared environment. Personally, I would love to see this take off. It would be nifty if I could "pause" my work at one terminal, and resume it at another in another location. Also reduces overall cost for people who have, let's say, one computer for the parents and one for the kids (the latter more prone to breaking). Cheap thin-clients would be really useful here.
Mak'tal shree lok'tak mek'ta sa'tak Oz! - Daniel Jackson
I've been thinking about this way of doing things more and more since the appearance of Knoppix, FAI, Adios, and various cluster installation facilities--and clearly, so has Redhat.
Most importantly, this
1. avoids the absurdity of moving all processing, and indeed disk to a central server
2. focusses attention on development and maintenance of prototype installations for different types of machines
Some of the implementation techniques don't seem pleasant--but they're doing things in a way that appears forward-looking.
I look forward to seeing more of this.
Matt
The project is too big, ambitious and lofty. It's just bound to collapse sooner or later IMHO. I don't think anybody /really/ wants to relearn how to deploy Linux anyway.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Shared state is practically equivalent to stateless? Since when?