[K12OSN] Single nic install - Terrell?

["Terrell Prudé, Jr."]

John Baillie wrote:

>Terrell Prudé wrote:
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Jennifer Waters wrote:
>
>        snip ---->
>        
>        
>        I reinstalled the software to see if that would make
>        any difference.  I noticed that there are many changes
>        that I have to make in order to have the server
>        actually work.  I need to start writing directions so
>        that I know what changes I have made. Yes, I put the
>        correct address for my server into lts.conf.
>        I am only using one nic card.  I do not have the dhcp
>        server, that is done by the district.
>        I just don't know what to do. Any more suggestions?
>        
>        Jennifer
>        
>____________________________________________________________
>
>Tell us as much as you can about that DHCP server. And yes, you do have
>to make a number of changes; fortunately, almost all of them are under
>/opt/ltsp/i386/etc. I also run a single-NIC install the same way you're
>trying to do, and for the same reason (the district handles DHCP--turns
>out I'm the district DHCP admin, too). I've come to greatly appreciate
>single-NIC installs.
>
>
>
>-->Snip
>
>
>
>Terrell,
>
>What is the impact on the rest of the network with the single nic
>install?
>
>Here's where I'm at.
>
>Two LTSP servers in operation one more on the way.
>
>Each LTS server will be connected to:
>* 10/100 NFS /home on private segment 192.168.1.0
>* One of 3 separate 10/100 LTSP Segments 192.168.0.0 Copper Gig E to
>each switch.
>* 10/100 School LAN 10.0.0.0
>
>MS Terminal Server will be connected to:
>
>* 10/100 School LAN 10.0.0.0 for Internet connection
>and
>* ???
>
>I'm leaning toward connecting the MS Terminal to the 192.168.2.0
>segment.
>
>Maybe I should rethink this.
>
>Our 5 buildings are connected via 10/100 fiber. As we expand into
>additional classrooms maybe there's a better way to configure our
>network? For this pilot I am running a separate Gig E copper from the
>new server to a new (dedicated to LTSP) switch.
>
>Regards,
>
>John 
>
>  
>

Warning: the below is a bit lengthy, but hopefully complete.

For the single-NIC install, you'd need Gig-E on the school LAN, one Gig 
port for each LTS.  If you've got decent quality switches, then the 
switch backplane should have no trouble supporting a LTSP deployment 
with this architecture.  If you can't do that (say, no available Gig 
ports), then I'd say continue with the dual-NIC installs; there's 
nothing at all wrong with them provided that district policy allows you 
to have more than one DHCP server (mine doesn't).  The two main 
advantages for me for the single-NIC install on the main school LAN is that

1.)  the LTS doubles as a Samba 3 file server for the entire school, so 
the Windows-running office staff can use the LTS as well.  Thus, they 
have an immediate vested interest in that server not going away.  :-)

2.)  I can stand up a thin client anywhere in the school, and I don't 
have to think about which VLAN the switch port's in.  This is very nice 
for the on-site tech dude.

The disadvantage is that, if you've got more than one LTS, you'll need 
to learn a little more about XDMCP and the X11 chooser.  Not too hard to 
get going, but it means yet a bit more learning.  If you've got an 
existing LDAP server, though, and your LTSP authentication is done at 
the LDAP server, then it is easy to see how you could stand up thirty 
LTSP boxes, all authenticating against the LDAP server, and if one LTS 
crashes, so what--big deal!  You've got 29 others that those same folks 
can use, and since we're storing everything on a Big, Bad, Central NFS 
box, they still have instant access to their files from any of those 
other 29 without further work from you.  The single-NIC install is the 
only way I would ever consider going in such a case, unless you want to 
deal with (in this example) thirty-one VLANs in your switch architecture.

For the MS Terminal Server, you won't need quite as much bandwidth as 
you do for LTSs, as RDP is less bandwidth-intensive than X11 (also 
somewhat less flexible, though).  I see no reason why you couldn't put 
the MS Terminal Server on the school LAN, unless you want your MS 
terminal sessions to be able to access the NFS server on the 
192.168.1.0/24 segment.  But here's the catch.  Do you want anyone from 
anywhere in the school to be able to term-srv into, or otherwise access 
(files, printers, etc.), that MS box?  If so, he'll need to be on the 
10.0.0.0 network, which means no access to the NFS server, which might, 
for all I know, also be running Samba.

How about just putting both your NFS server and your MS term server on 
the school LAN?  Have your bandwidth calculations said that you're 
better off with the NFS server on a private segment?

--TP
_____________________
Do you GNU!? <http://www.gnu.org>
Be virus- and spam-free with Free/Open Source Software (FOSS). Check it 
out! <http://www.mozilla.org/thunderbird>