Slashdot Mirror


Large-Scale Mac Deployment?

UncleRage writes "I've been asked to research and ultimately recommend a deployment procedure for Macs across a rather large network. I'm not a stranger to OS X; however, the last time I worked on deployment NetRestore was still king of the mountain. Considering the current options, what methodologies do admins adhere to? Given the current selection of tools available, what would you recommend when planning, prototyping, and rolling out a robust, modular deployment scenario? For the record, I'm not asking for a spoon-fed solution; I'm more interested in a discussion concerning the current tools and what may (or may not) have worked for you. There are a lot of options available for modular system deployment... what are your opinions?"

54 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. make sure you have lots of lube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    that is a whole lot of gay to be rolling out

  2. Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there even such a thing in this world? Folks like to disparage Windows, but it really is the only OS built for very large enterprises. Linux solutions don't really compare to Windows solutions - there, I said it...

    1. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by norkakn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      radmind ftw

    2. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I preemptively beg mods not to bury this comment. We all know that Linux is great on hackers' workstations and on servers and in computing clusters, but not so great as a desktop system for average users.

      Well large managed networks is two miles away in the distance on the scale of things Linux is awesome at. Active Directory, Exchange, Terminal Services... Windows really does have a very impressive offering in this area, while Linux stays behind the scenes and rarely faces the user.

    3. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong! Novell Zenworks is on Linux too - so why can't you have a heterogeneous large scale Linux and Windows rollout? There is Zenworks for Mac but none of our customers (though there is quite a few Macs) use it. If you are going to roll out Novell stuff you may as well do Novell Groupwise while you are at it.

      Novell solutions pwn Microsoft, sorry to say.

    4. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is there even such a thing in this world? Folks like to disparage Windows, but it really is the only OS built for very large enterprises.

      Agreed. It's the only OS for seriously large botnets.

    5. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are many huge Mac deployments: universities, school districts with 1-to-1 laptop programs where every student gets a laptop, Google (thousands of Macs), the Fountainbleau hotel in Miami, and more. Apple gear isn't always used to manage everything: most of these sites are probably using Active Directory or some UNIX-based LDAP service for account management. But there are plenty of large Mac deployments out there.

    6. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by genner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LDAP, thunderbird w/ lightning plugin (or openexchange, citadel or similar), XDMCP.. Updates? Your own local ubuntu/debian mirror w/ custom packages, etc. Lots of equivalents.

      ....and still no replacement for active directory.
      This is really the only practical reason why windows is still on top.

    7. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by amirulbahr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Active Directory

      You can't be serious on this one. LDAP + Kerberos can easily take on that role plus some.

      Exchange

      Email is easy enough to offer but shared address books and calendaring may give Exchange the edge. No harm in deploying Exchange on the back-end and using Evolution or Thunderbird or web based Exchange on the front-end.

      Terminal Services

      This is the most outrageous of your claims. Linux, Solaris, *BSD all come up trumps in this. You've got X11, NX, VNC, and the most advanced thin client solution at the moment, Sun Ray.

    8. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OS X is a certified Unix platform. Why is it hard to believe it's capable of being used as a large enterprise OS.

    9. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by rhavenn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Egh, Active Directory is just LDAP with Kerberos and some proprietary crap thrown on top to make in hard to interoperate with other OS's. The group policy tree is just a centralized registry management system. So, no you're wrong. It isn't as plug and play, but a LDAP setup with single sign on via kerberos and a puppet system to manage the config files (Linux does not use a registry) thrown together with a custom package repository (the SUS equivalent) and you're good to go.

      However, where Microsoft wins out is that that isn't easy to roll out. MS has the marketing and the 5 clicks that lets a "manager / phb" install MS server and call themselves admins. The bottom 2/3rds of the Microsoft install base, at the server level, mostly don't know what they're doing and really don't understand the underlying tech of what AD is. Once you start rolling out large Fortune 500 style install bases you really do need to know your stuff and most admins at this level probably could do a Linux / UNIX / OS X setup of the same scale with a little work and reading. However, the end users / managers don't want this since they've been rather well indoctrinated by the MS marketing team.

      Personally, I like to sum this up by stating that with MS it's very easy to turn the key and go from 0-40MPH, but to make it all the way to 60MPH it gets difficult and the hood of your car is welded shut. The Linux's and BSD's of the world make you learn how the engine works first, but once you've got it figured out you still make it to 60MPH before MS does.

    10. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by firstnevyn · · Score: 5, Informative

      With puppet of course.

    11. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Magic5Ball · · Score: 5, Funny

      Among my experiences (mostly historic):
      -Some shims/extensions installed to compensate for hardware issues were unconditionally loaded, even on hardware that didn't need/couldn't boot with them. That made reusing disk images on slightly different hardware revisions... fun.
      -Wake on LAN should do... stuff. Consistently.
      -I've autodiscovered a shared printer which I'll share with everybody. I've autodiscovered a shared printer which I'll share with everybody. I've autodiscovered a shared printer which I'll share with everybody...
      -What's that? The mounted ASIP resource disappeared for a few seconds and now everyone's trying to reconnect? At once? And their workstations are beachballed until the share comes back, even though they have no open resources on it?
      -Restoring resource forks from backup always works!
      -What do you mean by "the QuickTime update broke the AppleScript methods for a completely unrelated subsystem"?
      -I've autodiscovered the same printer share which I'll share with everybody...
      -ls -lr on a folder with a few hundred files in subfolders ... get coffee as much of the btree is traversed
      -I've connected to this resource before, so I'll make a new alias for it with a subtilely different name
      -What do you mean you've deleted stuff to the network trash and now it's locked?
      -I've autodiscovered the same printer share which I'll share with everybody...

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    12. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. Radmind is the only way to deploy a managed Mac OS environment.

    13. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by ilmdba · · Score: 4, Insightful

      please... X11, NX, VNC and Sun Ray all suck ass compared to RDP. i use them all on a daily basis, and RDP is far and away the best of them all. authentication, remote devices (USB, printing), sound, mapped drives, etc. etc. none of these other solutions even touch on any of those features. not to mention, the performance of RDP smokes all of those others completely out of the water.

    14. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, there are many historical reasons Microsoft has its leadership position. It has, in fact, been convicted for many of them.

      Active Directory is useful: its management interfaces are very useful for modest size environments. Scaling it down to small shops that can't spare dedicated, expensively licensed servers or scaling it up to large environments that require subtler control and redundancy, however, is extremely painful. Its underlying technologies are all more manageable with a more intelligent database behind it and a superior auto-configuration setup. These components are:

      DNS
      DHCP
      Kerberos (authentication)
      LDAP (user account and machine resource management)

      That's basically it. And given its lack of sanity checking of its own configurations, the difficulty of scripting its operations, and its mishandling of the addition or re-configuration of new resources, I don't recommend it for large environments.

    15. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by TrueKonrads · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't this kind of the point? If You can spend 2 hours and have a domain deployment with all the features You need done by a average paid admin, why spend two weeks by a linux guru? IT on a basic level is not something that adds immense value so why spend a lot on it?
      P.S. I love hacking just as the next guy and linux on enteprise is my pet peevee.

      --
      Lone Gunmen crew.
    16. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Egh, Active Directory is just LDAP with Kerberos and some proprietary crap thrown on top to make in hard to interoperate with other OS's."

      Yep, and Linux is just a couple of C files, written by underpaid engineers in their spare time.

      ActiveDirectory is much more than 'just LDAP with Kerberos'. It has nice management tools and integrates with almost all Microsoft applications. And most important: it actually works just fine. And you can easily interoperate with AD because using simple LDAP.

      I've tried to make a replacement for AD in Linux network. Even after spending a week I was not completely successful. For example, I still have no idea how to make offline logins using cached credentials. Or how to integrate Kerberos authentication and IPSec.

    17. Re:Large scale Apple managed LAN? by bertok · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not even that. OpenLDAP supports user-defined schemas. Active Directory doesn't. You have to go out and buy something if you don't like the stock set. Kerberos and one or more LDAP servers come standard with all the major Linux distros.

      100% wrong, AD does allow schema customizations, using a simple command-line tool. Many applications do exactly this, not just Microsoft software. Developers steer clear of it, because a forest-wide schema change terrifies most PHBs, but it's actually rather trivial if you need it. Microsoft does request that if you sell boxed software that makes schema extensions, then you should register your schema IDs with them to prevent conflicts, but that's not enforced or anything.

      Oh look.. it's even documented for you:
      LDIF Scripts
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms677268%28VS.85%29.aspx

      What I especially like about AD is that once you've extended your schema (say by adding a few attributes to the User class), you can then write a management console add-in that adds an extra tab to the User property dialog box. Nifty.

  3. DeployStudio or LanREV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have had great success out of both DeployStudio (http://deploystudio.com/) and LanREV (http://www.lanrev.com) in K-12 schools with 200+ machines.

    1. Re:DeployStudio or LanREV by scottdmontreal · · Score: 3, Informative

      DeployStudio looks fantastic with it's multicasting capabilities, but the System Image Utility in Leopard Server is just so trusty I have a hard time looking at anything else. http://www.deploystudio.com/Home.html You don't hear much about Leopard Server but it is by far the most promising aspect of the platform. It is the key to any large scale OSX network. I am a one man shop for 400 users. I'm sure that with a staff of three It could scale way up.

    2. Re:DeployStudio or LanREV by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a DeployStudio installation that supports 1132 laptops, iMac's and G5's, with only one IT member (who, to be fair, outsources any really difficult questions to me). Maintaining that is easy as hell - if a user complains too much about a problem, he tells them to netboot - they can choose which building they are etc. or he will VNC for them. Either way, 1 person scales well with DeployStudio - me, I'm an Apple Certified Systems Administrator, with a strong focus on Deployment, and I will push DeployStudio every time.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  4. Suggested reading: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out the following:

    http://www.macenterprise.org/
    http://www.deploystudio.com/Home.html
    http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/

  5. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guess what? It would be you, not the Macs. I'd have fired you for wasting the time needed to tear a display apart instead of sending it to the manufacturer to be repaired.

  6. Have you looked at the features.. by mewsenews · · Score: 3, Informative

    .. of OS X server? It doesn't require client access licenses like Windows server versions do, and many of the services seem tailored to providing the best administration possible for an OS X network. I don't have any personal experience, but that's the first place I'd look if I had to admin an entirely OS X network.

    1. Re:Have you looked at the features.. by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who's obviously never seen, much less used, OS X Server. OS X server is built around standards based enterprise tools like Apache, LDAP, CalDAV, and IMAP. You know, ISP grade stuff like this:
      http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html

      What standards is your Windows Server / gaming platform, based on?

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    2. Re:Have you looked at the features.. by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have an OS X server.

      It really does suck.

      It's kind of like a crippled BSD server with weird management utilities and a lot of buggy modified utilities.

      You might as well just use a normal Linux server, since all the same daemons are available, and much easier to manage.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Have you looked at the features.. by raddan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only problem with Mac OS X Server (and this is speaking from 10.3-10.4 experience; maybe 10.6 server is better) is that if Apple's grand vision for your network doesn't fit your own vision, then Mac OS X Server is next to useless. The problem is that Apple has preconfigured a number of built-in services, and changing them causes major headaches.

      For instance, in 10.4, any change to the GUI would overwrite your /etc/smb.conf. What's worse is that Apple often runs old versions of this software. If, say, you want to go out and run the latest Samba, nothing is stopping you, but expect parts of Apple's system to break. Sure, I admit, lots of people go this route and have many workarounds for Apple's stuff, but for us, we figured: if we're going to do all this work to circumvent Apple's packaged stuff, why not just run Linux? So that's what we run on our backend now. We even run Netatalk, which has to be the simplest daemon I've ever configured-- it basically worked with PAM+winbind right out of the box, and so we're able to authenticate our AFP clients against AD, too.

      If you're a very small shop, and you want a simple drop-in fileserver, Mac OS X will probably work for you. If you want a simple Open Directory, and don't have an existing directory system, Mac OS X will probably work for you. But get any more complex than that and you might as well use something else.

    4. Re:Have you looked at the features.. by thegreatemu · · Score: 3, Informative

      I second that one wholeheartedly. The GUI admin, which is billed as this "any average Joe can run a network" (which is how I got stuck with it with no training) is completely inadequate if you're doing anything completely non-trivial, but thinks it know better than you and clobbers any edits you make to the config files.

      Also, the DHCP and NAT fail tremendously. I told the server to serve DHCP and provide NAT services to the subnet so that my cluster would have one forward facing IP address. This worked great until someone unplugged the LAN cable, leaving the WAN as the only living connection. Since I had NAT on, OSX Server decided I must really want it, and just made a mistake for what side I wanted it on. So it happily started serving up DHCP requests on the wider network, at least until OIT hunted it down and screamed at me.

      it just works my ass

    5. Re:Have you looked at the features.. by torkus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry but no.

      Based on your anecdotal example...bla bla bla. Buy you readily say you're buying sub-par equipment. So i'm not sure how you can compare "good" equipment. If i bought a $300 clearance PC and compared it to a $800 enterprise-class PC i'm sure i'd see more failures in the cheapy one.

      Moving on...to the smaller end of 'large' business - 2500 users and ~4000 computers in my enterprise. Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does. Apple doesn't give on hardware unless you're buying them by the truck load and even then it's not nearly as much as other large suppliers.

      Go negotiate pricing with 7-figure yearly spending and Dell, HP, etc. will give a LOT more than Apple. Yes, Macs are pretty but we're talking about enterprise. Pretty takes a back seat.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  7. Options by schmidt349 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You have two choices in general on the Mac side:

    -- UNIX-y utilities, usually on the command line and a bit crufty in places, but free and nicely configurable
    -- Mac-type utilities with marvelous interfaces that will probably set you back a nice chunk of change

    When I was in the business, we used Carbon Copy Cloner, but g4u, Remote Desktop 3, or just plain old rsync are all pretty good bets depending on what type of imaging you're planning to do. CCC actually has one foot in both of the two camps I just described.

    Of course, I even remember the crusty old days of Assimilator.

  8. Re:Macs by NoYob · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....fucking Apple Cinema Display

    Damn! Is there a video? I tried googling "apple cinema display fucking" and "apple cinema display porn" and nothing.

    So, what was it fucking? The DVD drive? or the USB port?

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  9. Easy Steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For initial deployment, Deploy Studio: http://www.deploystudio.com/

    For authentication and settings management, use OpenDirectory.

    For ongoing control and user support, use Remote Desktop (from Apple).

    For a more advanced option, try Radmind to keep the Macs in sync: http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/

  10. Re:Macs by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking it apart yourself is worse than paying somebody else $400/hr to take it apart for you?

  11. JAMF Casper by cwgmpls · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out the Mac management software from JAMF software. It pretty much covers it all, from package management to image deployment to remote desktop to inventory. Used in many mac-based school districts and Universities.

  12. We have a 300 Mac exclusive network by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First we build and test a good image on a machine for a couple of weeks.
    Then we either use that image,if it was correct the first time, or build a new one from it if it required touching up.
    We use Apple's free Disk Utility which comes free with all macs.

    We then get about 10 - 15 firewire drives and copy that image on them. (You have to make sure the drives are bootable, you can actually deploy that same image onto the drive itself.)
    Then we line up 10-15 machines and use again the Disk Utility to image them.
    Depending on the size of the image, just about the time you have the next 10-15 unboxed and set up (very easy to do since they're all all-in-ones), the first batch is ready.
    Works for us, but then again, our schedule is flexible and we can afford a couple of days of leisurely imaging.

    Oh, yeah, and if you do have an image you can also work with Apple, they'll preload it on for you.

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  13. Need more info.. by engele · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is an excellent resource (at least last time I checked and it has been awhile, they used to be called macosxlabs.org). http://www.macenterprise.org/ As far as tools, the built in tools are very good. A third party tool that can be very useful for bootable drive images is Carbon Copy Cloner. When you say large, do you mean hundreds or thousands, or less? It will definitely change things for you. I think that you will be surprised by both the ease of the transition, and the things that should be easy that are not. Really I don't know how we can help you unless you have specific areas where you are interested in learning solutions (and I don't say that to be a jerk, I'll try to answer questions where I can). How many servers? Directory Server? File Sharing? Exchange Server/POP/IMAP? Calendaring? Centralized home directories? Budget per user? Of course there are cool things that cost money and are not really needed, and hard things that are cheap but work well once set up etc. I would help more, but I don't know where to start... take a look at the link above, and ask questions as you get a better idea of he scope

  14. Net Boot Based Installation and Monitoring by Zerocool3001 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I like you, developed deployment for a mac based network (600 or so macs) back when command line ASR and netrestore were the best options. However, we also upgraded our deployment methods as Apple incorporated some of the technologies we used (cloning and automatic install options) into their server software. Today that particular piece of software is very well polished and does the job extremely well. The last time we did an installation (a few years ago) we used custom netboot images with automatic install options for different types of computers (lab, classroom, etc.) based on mac address. At the time we used a third party unix package manager or OS X called Radmind, but it proved to be more trouble than it was worth. However, Apple Remote desktop's package management and monitoring work very well and lets your do most of the upgrade install tasks you need to. In the end, the only per-machine work was setting up the machine to boot from the network by default.

    Also, if you have the bandwidth, you can centralize your OS installs as server based images that are never installed on the thin clients. If you get it to work, it makes upgrades and deployment very easy.

    If you want to discuss some of the problems we faced and our solutions, please feel free to contact me.

    --
    Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
  15. Re:Macs by countertrolling · · Score: 4, Funny

    400 dollars an hour?! What are you using? Lawyers? How does that work?

    1) Monitor breaks
    2) Sue Apple
    3) Free monitor?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  16. radmind by norkakn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to run a network with hundreds of apples with radmind. We installed the initial images with NetRestore (multicast for the larger influxes), and upon reboot, the computers would download their radmind certificate from LDAP and install all of the software that it needed.

    It takes more up front time to set up and configure radmind, but it works wonderfully for almost anything you want to do.

  17. OS X Server + method of your choice by bbk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple has a robust remote installation suite with OS X Server, which is darn cheap compared to most other commercial offerings.

    10.6 includes a first party version of NetRestore (full system image deployment, similar to Ghost or Flash Archive on Solaris), but most people deploying across a large number of systems should roll their own images with packaged based tools like DeployStudio or InstaDMG:

    http://www.deploystudio.com/
    http://code.google.com/p/instadmg/

    Some other good sites for finding info:
      http://www.afp548.com/
      http://www.macenterprise.org/

  18. Radmind by profplump · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's been mentioned a couple of times, but mostly with -1 scores, so it's easy to miss: Radmind. It's a very powerful deployment tool with a totally transparent mechanism so you can tweak it to do *exactly* what you want in terms of mucking with files on the disk. I've seen people complain about it being hard to use, but I thought it was pretty straightforward -- install an app, run the change detector, tweak as desired (if at all), build an app image, deploy.

    http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/

  19. Re:Macs by azav · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stupid post.

    2 would never happen and would cost WAY more than 400 bucks in time alone.

    Get Applecare and it's covered for 3 years. Ship it back to Apple while they fix it. That's what we do.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  20. Why ask on /.? Plenty of info elsewhere... by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why on earth is this being asked on Slashdot? Head to afp548.com and macenterprise.org (particularly its mailing list). You'll find info on InstaDMG, DeployStudio, even Radmind.

    1. Re:Why ask on /.? Plenty of info elsewhere... by Toe,+The · · Score: 3, Informative

      The above are good resources, but also check out the OS X Server list. It is a good, geeky community of people actively building and working on OS X Server networks.

  21. Apple Software Restore + Radmind + ARD by raddan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple Software Restore, which comes "in the box". We set up a base machine, populate the /System/Library/User Templates/English.lproj/ and then make a disk image to our fileserver using ASR. Then, boot new machines in Target Disk Mode and deploy the image using your workstation.

    We could probably come up with something clever using a boot partition, but this works fine for us. If you want to get fine-grained, have a look at Radmind but keep in mind that Adobe apps will thwart your every attempt to manage them at that level.

    All of the above are Free/free. We handle patching using Apple Remote Desktop (not free, but well worth the money). You can also configure your machines to authenticate against an Active Directory (like we do); if you're willing to modify your schema, you can even manage your installation from your MMC snap-ins like you can with Windows boxen.

  22. Open Directory and Remote Desktop by lymond01 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Open Directory
    By centralizing information about users and network resources, directory services provide the infrastructure required for managing users, groups, and computers on your network. Directory services can benefit organizations with as few as 10 people and are essential for enterprise networks that have thousands of users. Deploying a directory server helps reduce administrative costs, improve security, and provide users with a more productive computing experience.

    Remote Desktop
    Apple Remote Desktop is the best way to manage the Mac computers on your network. Distribute software, provide real-time online help to end users, create detailed software and hardware reports, and automate routine management tasks -- all without leaving your desk. Featuring Automator actions, Remote Spotlight search, and a new Dashboard widget*, Apple Remote Desktop 3 makes your job easier than ever.

    * You'll notice Open Directory has no Dashboard widget. It's because it isn't uniquely Apple and therefore isn't polished to a blinding shine.

  23. from experience by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're likely to get some laptops in addition to desktops. Get yourself a large room, a dozen or more firewire cables, power strips together. Before the machines arrive, use a macbook pro or macbook (a laptop) to develop your base image. Install all software on it that is going to be on most of the machines. Test thoroughly. Be sure all your remote access is tested. (ARD/SSH)

    Use netrestore to create the base image. When the computers arrive, copy the base image to a group of laptops, with netrestore app. The number varies depending on how many computers you are going to be imaging, the size of your base image, and how much help you have. 8-12 is typical if only one person is going to be restoring.

    First thing you should do with machines out of the box is label them, have labels made up in advance. Then set them all up imaging over firewire, just get an assembly line going. You CAN do netrestore over the network, but it's been my experience it's less reliable. (machines randomly fail to restore, sometimes entire groups fail at an annoying 99% etc) Firewire is usually faster anyway since your fileserver or switch is very unlikely to be able to keep up with imaging a dozen at once. FW800 imaging is an amazing thing.

    Once machines are imaged, there should be a folder of scripts sitting on each machine's local admin acct, one for each group of machines. The script will prompt for computer name and run. When run it will rename the computer and delete all the apps that should not be on that particular image. This can also be done by running the script remotely over apple remote desktop. If you don't have ARD, *get it now*. It will save you incredible amounts of time. Using this removal script method adds only a few minutes of time per image but you're doing them in parallel so its negligible, and saves you the major headache of managing a half dozen different base images.

    As long as you made the image on a laptop, it should have full hardware support for the camera etc. Different images are required for PPC, but fortunately that's not a headache you have to worry about. (I did, PAIN)

    Boot camp adds a level of complexity, requiring you to partition the hard drives before restoring to them, and then using something like Ghost or Acronis. One person can image between 40-80 machines in 8 hrs depending on how things go. Helps to have grunts to do the minor things like unpacking and delivery to stations. Find some carts so you can move machines several at a time. Inform the cleaning staff that you're going to have a mountain of packing material to dispose of. Keep 1 box for every 20 machines in case you need to box them up to send to a repair shop down the road.

    If you insist on using netrestore over the network, be sure you have multicast enabled on the switches. It doesn't like crossing subnets but can be made to work.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  24. Re:Macs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rule 35

    Oh, the fail.

  25. Bombich Software by SammyIAm · · Score: 3, Informative

    I worked at a school district for some time with a significant Mac deployment. We used Mike Bombich's software extensively, and especially for deployment, his NetBoot utility.

    It does take a little bit of configuration on the server-side to start, but it looks like some other posters have already linked to tutorials for setting that up. MB has a utility to create a net-bootable-image that can used to image that machine with your choice of disk images (we had different images for different architectures, and different software packages), or can be automated to pick an image automatically.

    His NetBoot software also has the ability to run a shell script to complete configuration settings that may need to be done on a per-machine basis (setting the computer network name for example).

    For running updates, and modifying settings after the initial imaging, Apple's remote desktop is actually very useful. Although the feature set is limited, it DOES allow for the execution of shell commands from the Remote Desktop interface, which makes upgrading or changing settings on a large number of machines fairly easy.

  26. Re:Macs by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The hardware is more reliable than most OEMs unless you got burned by iMac G5s with bad caps, but that wasn't really Apple's fault. A lot of OEMs got hit by those damned caps.

    You should have just mailed in the damn Cinema Display. Service providers (at least non-Apple owned providers) can't replace anything on them but the power brick these days. Just mail it in and let the repair depot monkeys figure it out. I would never want to replace an LCD backlight (which isn't exactly a user-accessible part on ANY display) if it could ever be helped.

  27. Radmind by fitterhappier · · Score: 4, Informative

    I managed a deployment of roughly 800 Macs across the campus of a large university using Radmind. I've also managed the campus Linux, Solaris and OpenBSD kerberos servers, web servers and file servers with the same software. Radmind's learning curve is a little steeper at first, but it's one of the most flexible deployment options out there once you get the hang of it.

    Radmind's not really a competitor with tools like NetRestore. When used correctly, NetRestore is great for total reimaging of deployed hardware: nothing beats a block-copy installation for speed. Where NetRestore falls down is when dealing with deployment entropy. After imaging, the machine is in an unknown state ("post-image"), and the only way to be sure all machines are in the same state is to blow away the entire disk and reimage, usually at a cost of gigabytes of bandwidth per machine.

    This is where Radmind excels. It's basically a tripwire with software deployment and roll back, all based on the differences between what should be installed and what's actually on the disk. The core utility, fsdiff, looks at all files and directories designated as managed by the administrator and generates a list of differences. You can capture those changes as a loadset and upload them to the Radmind server for deployment to other machines, or you can undo any changes detected by fsdiff and restore the client to a known good state.

    The great thing about this method of management is that there's minimal bandwidth used. If fsdiff detects no changes on the filesystem, there's no reason to download anything: your system is in a known good state. On the other hand, it makes deploying Apple's system and security updates pretty damn easy. Grab the updater from Apple's website, install, and run the Radmind tools to capture the changes. Store the changes on the server, add the new loadset to your machines' profile (command file), and let your clients pull down the changes.

    The Radmind community is very helpful. Most questions to the mailing list (hosted on SF.net, Google groups mirror here) are answered very quickly, and people are eager to share details about local setups and scripting solutions. A typical setup for a Radmind-managed Mac OS X client usually involves a few possible methods for initiating updates, most of which involve iHook as the UI:

    1. Check for updates on Radmind server during logout, update client if found.
    2. Run a nightly tripwire regardless of updates from server.
    3. Run a Radmind update during boot if a special flag file is found on the disk.

    Since we relied on students to help run our labs, we also deployed a special, unprivileged local user account, whom the students could log in as. This also triggered a Radmind update. And of course you can trigger updates over ssh (which works well in combination with something like pdsh).

    We combined Radmind with NetBoot for rapid, consistent deployments. Once the hardware was in place and on the network, we netbooted, used ASR to install a minimum and relatively recent system, and let Radmind bring everything up to date, including per-host license files and location specific software.

    Radmind's not perfect. It manages at the file level. If you want something to manage, say, config files on a line-by-line basis, Radmind isn't going to fit the bill (yet). Generally speaking, though, Radmind manages Mac OS X with ease. Once you've got Radmind managing your Macs, you'll find you have a lot of extra time to do interesting things instead of troubleshooting problems brought on by stale deployments.

    The Radmind wiki is a decent place to start looking. Good luck.

  28. Re:Macs by Mista2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    2007 Shuttle PC, dead after one year (just out of warantee)
    Custom PC tower, 5 years, finally fails to make it past post last week.
    2006 Mac Mini - still rocking on.

    Most of our corporate machines are towers or standard desktops, internals never upgraded since purchase. A fleet of 2009 minis would be fine for these, and iMacs for reception (or senior managers).

    Savings: no AV software, easier deployment of apps and policies, dont require MS Active directory or client CALs to manage them - however, not knowing month to month what hardware is going to come available from Apple would suck. Windows apps could be easily delivered using citrix or teminal server for those that need it.
    Ever tried to manage 100 notebooks and backup personal data? Howabout encryption software - finally available with bitlocker if you get Vista Pro or premium - but then system folders encrypted too, a pain to manage. I liek just the encrypted home folders - which can also be mounted from an OS X server - and replicated for laptops.
    Also how about common accessories like power adapters for 100 laptops and a single OS image that will work for everything?

    If you can break the MS monopoly then there are savings to be made up to a certain scale.
    However I will admit managing more than 1000 of these puppies could be challenging and I havent seen much that would help except maybe Zenworks from Novell - but then eDirectory is not cheap, but again savings from requiring fewer people to manage everything and fewer servers required.

    For a bulk deployment I'd also look at splitting home off from the boot drive, and have a spare boot image with minimum required apps on every Mac, and script an RSync to keep it fresh from a single image.

  29. Mass Mac Deployment for Dummies by admiralex · · Score: 3, Informative

    I do this for the federal government, after coming from a university environment where I grew up with the Mac from the bad ol' days of the late 90s through Apple's phoneix-like rise from those ashes into the titan it is now. Truth be told, not much has changed.

    For mass deployments, I'm about to look into Casper, but NOTHING I've seen or heard about beats netboot/netrestore -- and mind you, I live and breathe Mac. I use PCs to manage Remedy tickets, and that's it. The ability to create a master image, upload it to a server, restart a machine with the n key pressed and have it image itself was and is nothing short of magical, and it's the deployment solution I'm moving toward for the portion of the Treasury Department network I control (if I die, money will cease to be printed). Unless Casper can top that, netinstall + n is still my deployment solution of choice, and one that the folks where I used to work are still trying to replicate three years later. There's nothing faster or more foolproof.

    Prototyping is just as easy. I deal with everything from banknote designers (pull out a bill. Isn't it pretty? My designers drew all that stuff on their Macs) to executive management, and though they use their machines differently, they all have the same baseline needs -- a rock solid configuration that's hardened to IT Security's exacting (if evolving) standards, and Office to handle collaboration. My base image is a hardened installation of Leopard with fully-patched Office. That's standard across all machines. This base image is what I run in regular user mode on my personal production machine so I will know firsthand exactly what the user experiences from day to day. I customize the default user environment on the standard image to suit _my_ tastes and allow the users to tweak and refine that environment as they see fit. I learned years ago that this is the best approach for standardizing a user's desktop because I know how to work around the various quirks of OS X that can become annoying after using it for an extended period of time, and they usually haven't been on Macs long enough to have figured these things out. The more experienced of my newest users typically bristle at this since to a person they always think their approach/way of configuring the Finder/desktop is THE way to have their machines work, but I usually don't hear a peep from them after a week or two of working in my environment. The biggest compliment to me is when I cease to get trouble tickets from my bitchiest users because they find that I've already anticipated and addressed their most obvious complaints in the standard image.

    On top of the standard image, I install applications specific to the machine's role. The designers, for instance, get Adobe CS 4 and additional design-focused applications such as Quark and a font manager. My video people get Final Cut Studio. My engravers get the same package as the designers. My method of choice for deploying to these disparate groups lately has been to install the specialized applications on the standard image and create secondary images applicable to specific groups. Banknote design machines, for example, have their own special image and the video production machines have an image all their own. This simplifies things mightily because all I have to know when I want to deploy a new workstation (or repair a broken one) is where it's going. Oh, this is a replacement banknote machine? Put the banknote image on it. Copy the _user folder_ -- and nothing else -- from the old machine, create an account on the new machine, point it at the old user folder, and voila. Completely new hardware, and the user has no idea anything's changed. I've upgraded users from Tiger-running G5s to Leopard-running 8 core Mac Pros, and the only difference they noticed was the machine was "a lot faster." And the Apple menu's a different color. That's the power of Mac OS X.

    Security, as I'm sure you well know, is not an issue on the Mac, but given the sensitivity of what my users do, I