[clug] Virtual Machine 'farms'?

[Daniel Pittman]

Alex Satrapa <grail at goldweb.com.au> writes:
> On 15/10/2009, at 23:28 , Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> One, it is much easier to treat the VM as a bit of real hardware, and make
>> sure it boots from the network when first run.  Then you can use the same OS
>> deployment tools that you use for the rest of your systems to build it,
>> including setting up post-install chef, etc, work.
>
> I don't have "the rest of your systems". I have three computers with a
> plethora of virtual machines.
>
> "the rest of your systems" are for computer geeks who think the 90s were
> cool. I can say that now because I threw out 8 pre-pentium systems at the
> last big computer recycling day.

Ah.  I thought this was work related rather than personal; I think I
mis-assumed the scale of your deployments and all.  Most businesses that get
to the stage of benefiting from virtual machines, in my experience, are
already past the stage of wanting a network deployment tool. :)

[...]

>> Now, my turn: what platform(s) are you using Chef on
>
> None yet.
>
> I have a bunch of virtual machines, one which has recently been set up as a
> PXE server (but that service will be migrated to the host Real Soon Now™
> along with the Chef server.
>
> The next step is to get all the way from non-existent virtual machine to
> booted, OS installed, chef client installed, machine visible in iClassify.
>
> This is all part of the talk I'm planning to give in a couple of weeks (or
> whenever I've been shuffled to in the programme). I'm doing an Isaac Asimov,
> one might say.

OK, cool.  Well, I shall keep an eye out for comments, or swearing, about chef
from you, I guess. :)

        Daniel
-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
   Looking for work?  Love Perl?  In Melbourne, Australia?  We are hiring.