On Monday, November 24, 2014, Alan Evangelista alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 11/23/2014 01:35 PM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014, Alan Evangelista < alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com mailto:alanoe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
Question 1: From the user perspective, what is the benefit of using Cobbler's own TFTP server, implemented in Python, over using inet TFTP server or another TFTP server ? I see it generates templates in RAM instead of creating files (eg boot loader configuration file), but I dont know if this translates in a performance gain.
Great question Alan. From my experience at $previous_job running cobbler sync when you have thousands of records takes a very long time. With the built in cobbler tftp server, there is no sync after flipping the NetBoot boolean. I actually see that feature as a massive edge over Ohad's Foreman for larger installations vs waiting 60 seconds for a sync to complete.
cobbler sync is naive, it writes tftp files for all systems. In Cobbler latest code, sync between Cobbler system object and TFTP server is done incrementally via lite_sync when netboot is enabled/disabled in a Cobbler system object. This decreased much the performance difference between using an external FTP server and Cobbler's own FTP server. This is already available in Cobbler 2.6.
Why not replace sync with lite_sync entirely?