[THIN] Re: Installation Manager vs. Cloning

Joe, 

 

So does that mean you don't like IM? :-)

 

Steve Greenberg

Thin Client Computing

34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453

Scottsdale, AZ 85262

(602) 432-8649

www.thinclient.net

steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:43 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Installation Manager vs. Cloning

 

The problem I have with IM:

Cannot select the order things are installed.  (This can be really
important)
Cannot chain several application installs between reboot.
Many application require repackaging for IM because, well not every app is
an .msi package.  If I use IM to launch a .cmd file, well I have to create
the script anyways. 
Repackaged Apps are harder to reverse engineer that scripts.  In a way
scripts are self documenting.
Most installations require some type of customization/clean up that requires
a script anyways.
You still need a method for applying an OS and Presentation server. 
Not every server in your Citrix Environment will be running Presentation
Server (Web Interface, License servers, etc).
As a consultant, scripts are easily portable and customizable.  I wrote a
set of script that works well with and without a deployment tool (such as
altiris). Works great for multiple silo, non-TS servers and It also
generates a report of what installed and what failed. 

Personally, have a deployment tool such as Altiris is the way to go...  My
second choice, it to lay down an unconfigured OS (Ghost or otherise) and the
let the scripts handle the rest.

On 6/15/06, Rick Mack <Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Joe,

Gotta disagree with a couple of your comments. Unless your organization is
using something like Altiris already, if you've got the Citrix enterprise
product you should consider using IM.

It does a pretty good job of controlling software installation and keeping
track of what's happened. There are things IM does really well like letting
you co-ordinate software installation and time-based load balancing so you
can maintain 100% farm uptime during a software installation cycle. 

The ability to use multiple packaging/installation technologies from a
single control point isn't real bad either. You can push out MSIs or other
custom installs, registry updates, file updates etc to your Citrix servers.
As an example, you can use it as a front end to update SAPGUI on demand. 

Probably it's biggest drawback is it doesn't record/inventory what's already
installed on a server. So if you clone or even just rename a server, or move
it from your development farm to a production farm, you've got no record of
what's been installed on that server. It doesn't let you modify all the
package properties, so the easiest way to modify/update a package is to
remove it and re-add it in the management console. That loses all the IM
information in the datastore for that piece of software on your servers. 

It's actually not that hard to get the IM-installed software inventory off a
system, but I'm not aware of any way to pump that into the datastore. So the
IM interface doesn't have a reliable way of telling you exactly what's been
installed on a server. 

But if it did have an inventory capability, it'd actually be pretty darn
good.

regards,

Rick

Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems


________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Joe Shonk
Sent: Fri 16/06/2006 5:14
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Installation Manager vs. Cloning


With IM, you still have to drop an OS with Citrix on the server.  Also note,
with IM there is no gaurantee that applications will be installed in the
order you'd like them to be. 

From personal experience, no one really uses IM.  Sure there are a few, but
there are better solutions out there.
Imaging is OK but there is still some clean up work that has to be
performed.
Scripting is the way to go.  Sure, it's bit of work to setup but when your
done you'll have flexibility to the nth degree. 

Joe


On 6/15/06, Chad King <caking76@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        Some things I've come up with..

        Pro's and Con's For using Installation Manager 

        Pro - Easy to upgrade apps (No need to update and recapture the
image)

        Pro - Easy and Clean uninstallation of apps (either before an
upgrade or for troubleshooting)

        Pro - Easy to manage application deployment for custom builds 

        Pro - No need to reimage all machines for major upgrades (Apps that
don't uninstall cleanly)


        Con - Currently using imaging (There has been a lot of time invested
into this process already) 

        Con - Takes longer to build a complete server

        Con - Every server is gaurenteed to be the same after imaging

        If anyone can throw some more Pro's and Con's to me I would really
appreciate. I'm convinced that Installation Manager is better, cleaner, and
easier in the long run but I have done both in the past and can't say one's
hands down better than the other. I'm looking for realistic pros and cons
not Installation Manager is best practice (if you say that tell me why it's
best practice..) 

        Thanks!
        Chad



############################################################################
#########
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has
been sent to you in error.  If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.  If you have received it
in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies of this e-mail and any attachments.  All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby
disclaimed to the extent permitted by law. 
############################################################################
#########

Other related posts: