[rmendis]

Does anyone know if NetBoot is enabled/supported on MacOS X?

Unlike (un-carbonised) MacOS apps, MacOS X (carbon + cocoa) apps are all NetBootable by default.

So the time may be ripe for Apple to introduce an iMac Network Edition: a diskless version of a (possibly G4) iMac for the classroom and office network.

[Scott_H]

Well OS X Server can be a netboot server for OS 9 machines now. I think there's little doubt that it will come to OS X. It may have to wait for the next update to OS X Server which may be soon or this summer or ....


I wouldn't expect a diskless iMac anytime soon. For one thing computers need/want a local disk top cashe on. Secondly there's little to be gained by removing the disk.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
For one thing computers need/want a local disk top cashe on. Secondly there's little to be gained by removing the disk.

If you've used a NetBoot Mac you'll be surprised at how good the performance is (on small subnets).

In the early days of NetBoot, the 10Mb/sec network speeds were the main bottleneck. So in effect, yes, small local drives were used for caching. But now with 100Mb/sec networks, this may no longer be a problem.

If you think about it, accessing a fast drive over a 100Mb net may be faster than your local drive. This is maybe why we saw such great perfomance (about 1.5 yrs ago!)

Although, drives are very cheap these days, so removing one isn't going to make it much cheaper.

On the other hand, removing the drive will ensure that a 'Network Edition' iMac remains exclusively for network use. i.e for mid-large iMac purchases.

(Hence apple could stick a G4 in them knowing that it won't eat up Cube and G4 marketshare)

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by rmendis:
Does anyone know if NetBoot is enabled/supported on MacOS X?

It is not "enabled or supported", but it can be done (I don't garantee you can do it with a stock kernel though).

What you need to do is set up a tftp server, and have it download the BootX program (/System/Library/CoreServices/BootX) which it can tell the netbooter to do through an optiona field in the DHCP or bootp response. BootX can then use tftp to grab the mach_kernel, and you must use an NFS root.

Louis

[rmendis]

Originally posted by lgerbarg:
It is not "enabled or supported", but it can be done (I don't guarantee you can do it with a stock kernel though).

What you need to do is...

If Apple (re)launches NetBoot and Network Macs,
it must be seamless and easy to use.

In fact, unless it is easier to administer than a standard network,
there will be not much point.

[sniffer]

Just thinking.. A HD less iMac would certainly make a quiet computer. In some environments it might have been pretty nice..
I wouldn't mind one on my bedrom.. lol

Just a thought..

------------------
---------
sniffer

[mitchell_pgh]

I'm trying to justify netboot with OSX...

Remember, most G4's now come standard with 10, 100, and 1000 base T...

I guess with netboot you could:

- strip all of the expensive components from the computer for schools, libraries, computer labs to dramatically reduce the per computer price.
- easily monitor a medium sized network.
- increase security?
- login from anywhere on campus and have all of your settings files etc...

It would be a hard sell unless the things were around $350 including a monitor (which isn't that unrealistic)

It doesn't fall into the digital hub idea Steve had though...

[Scott_H]

Why is that a hard sell? They're buying iMacs now. Why not ponny up some more for simple OS admin on a central server. With OS X I'm sure they'll add networked login and file storage/sharing. It's a no brainer.

NetInfo will handle most of what NetBoot does for most folks now; access to all personal settings and resources from any computer on the network, increased security, etc. It's interface is obtuse, to say the least, and documentation needs to dramatically improve, but NetInfo is probably the way to go for most people's needs. NetBoot puts a lot of load on a network, and probably more so with Mac OS X.

---------------------------------------

Posted through Opera for Mac TP1 - for an early release, it's Suh-weeeeeeet!

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by rmendis:
If Apple (re)launches NetBoot and Network Macs,
it must be seamless and easy to use.

In fact, unless it is easier to administer than a standard network,
there will be not much point.

I am relatively sure Apple will support NetBoot in the future. They will definately make a bunch of nice graphical config and admin tools for it. I am merely describing how one can do it if they really want to.

Louis

[Gametes]

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but it seems to me merely booting from a server greatly underutilizes the full potential of such a setup.
What I propose is, of course, no great surprise or innovation, and was the way computers were originally: why not remove everything from the computer except the I/O devices?
Why just boot from a server, when you can run everything from it?
How about each terminal be a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and a connectivity hub to unite these devices to eachother, the network, and USB or Firewire devices?

Then, like, 4 of these can run from a dual-G4 setup.

Sounds perfect to me. Total cost should be about 1000$ for a terminal, if you go the flat-screen route, half that for imac-style. Then you just buy a G4.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Gametes:
What I propose is, of course, no great surprise or innovation, and was the way computers were originally: why not remove everything from the computer except the I/O devices?

Well, if you have NXHosted a NEXTSTEP app (I'm not sure if this was/is enabled on MacOS X given the newer display engine. I heard that they removed the client/server 'partitioning' of the DisplayPostScript system), you will get something along the lines of what you're saying.

The Terminal will still need a processor for the display engine.
However, the burden *this* places on a network is great.
Mostly because of the continuous stream of data to your screen.

NetBooting is different. Boot times can be fantastically better than nomal boot, if one boots the entire network at one time.
('Flick a swtich' to boot yor whole classroom.)

After that, it's mostly disk swapping to and from the FileServer.
Given a sensible 128MB, MacOS X shouldn't swap too often (not using Classic, of course. However, i don't think classic will NetBoot).

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

One of the problems it seems you've overlooked with netbooting OS X is the new virtual memory model. OS X expects to have a hefty bit of swap space on a disk to swap out programs. To netboot without a HD, you would either have to load up the machine on ram, an expensive option that negates the lack of a HD, or read and write to the paging file over a network, a very slow idea. I'm all for taking an imac with a small drive, netbooting it, but still using the hd for a paging file and perhaps a netboot specific cache. That may not bring down the cost of the machine, however the real cost of having a machine is administering it. This is true even in schools.

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by PerfectlyNormalBeast:
One of the problems it seems you've overlooked with netbooting OS X is the new virtual memory model. OS X expects to have a hefty bit of swap space on a disk to swap out programs. To netboot without a HD, you would either have to load up the machine on ram, an expensive option that negates the lack of a HD, or read and write to the paging file over a network, a very slow idea. I'm all for taking an imac with a small drive, netbooting it, but still using the hd for a paging file and perhaps a netboot specific cache. That may not bring down the cost of the machine, however the real cost of having a machine is administering it. This is true even in schools.

Plenty of Unixes do NFS swap, it is relatively standarrd and if you have a reasonable amount of RAM (128 to 256) your swap hit should not be too bad. It is also not unreasonable to up the ram slightly if you are removing a bunch of other costly things (HD, CD, etc).

Louis

[rmendis]

Originally posted by lgerbarg:
It is also not unreasonable to up the ram slightly if you are removing a bunch of other costly things (HD, CD, etc).

That's right.

What can the value of a 10GB drive buy you in RAM?
128MB?196MB? (In addtition to the standard 64MB)

Well, that would increase the performance of MacOS X significantly,
resulting in better performance than low memory + local HD.

Although i would say that there are three things Apple must wait for/produce in order to relaunch NetBoot:

1. MacOS X apps (I don't think Classic apps will NetBoot well)

2. A "Network Edition" iMac (high RAM, no HD, 10/100/1000ethernet)

3. A MacOS X Server machine (fast disk/array, NetBoot admin app):
"Network Server", "iServer",etc..

[NeilCharter]

Can someone explain how NetBooting works - and what type of macs you would need. It sounds like a great idea to manage a number of macs.

Thanks,

Neil

[rmendis]

Originally posted by NeilCharter:
Can someone explain how NetBooting works - and what type of macs you would need.

In brief, lay terms:

You know your Mac can boot from its HD, but could also boot from a CD or a FireWire or USB drive? Well, there is a third place a Mac can boot from: that is the drive (folder) of a machine on the network.

NetBoot is often configured along with Macintosh Manager Servers.
So that one's desktop and user files are stored centrally.
(In the case of diskless Macs, this is a must)

The advantages are:

1. Scaling up the network is easy: just add a user and a box.

2. Security: as all data is centralised, it is more secure. HD less NetBoot nets are less vulnerable to viruses.

3. Easy to upgrade/install software on the network.

4. Users may log in from anywhere in the network.

5. Safer: as all data and custom settings are centralised,
they may be backed up centrally by SysAdmin.