On 9/27/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kam Leo wrote: > > On 9/27/07, Aldo Foot <lunixer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The only CD I ever use is the boot cd, I've never used an actual DVD to > >> install. > >> > >> ~Aldo. > > > > Works when you have the networking bandwidth, i.e. high download quota > > (10s of GB per month) and speed megabits vs. Hz. > > > If you are installing a single system, it should not make a > difference in the download quote, and may even help, because you > will not be downloading packages you are not going to install, as > you most likely would if you downloaded the DVD and installed from > that. On the other hand, if you have more then one Linux box, you > should consider having one host the DVD image, and a local repo with > the updates, and install from the local network. I have not measured > it, but it feels like a network install from a local server is > faster then a DVD install. Things like network speed, and server > load, or DVD drive speed would have an effect on the install speed. > With the exception of creating a local repository I've used the above installation methods (previous releases and other distros). For me the biggest advantages of using a network install are avoidance of CD/DVD drive compatibility issues and disc shuffling. > The fastest, if you are deploying several identical machines, would > be to do a full install on the first one, and then clone the drive. For Windows machines Ghost and similar utilities allow you to clone to different sized drives and/or partitions. Can the open software counterpart(s) do the same? > There is some interesting software to let you clone over the network... The corporate version of Ghost already does that. Have not tried using it on a ext3 partition. > Mikkel
