ADSM-L

Re: Using ADSM to creat disk images

2000-01-25 10:52:21
Subject: Re: Using ADSM to creat disk images
From: Thomas Denier <Thomas.Denier AT MAIL.TJU DOT EDU>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:52:21 -0500
I think the method outlined below is workable, but I doubt that it is the best
approach. There are at least two products on the market that specialize in
creating and duplicating Windows NT disk images. It has been I while since I
had occasion to research these products, but my recollection is that they
offered two advantages in comparison to using ADSM. First, they automated some
of the customization required for individual target systems. In particular,
they automated the assignment of a unique SID to each system. Second, they
required less setup work in preparation for fetching the disk image. At least
one of the products could fetch a disk image from a server using software that
resided entirely on a bootable floppy.

> We are getting ready to roll out a fairly large number of NT servers this
year,
> both new servers and replacements.  With all of the additional products we
> install after NT, it takes about a day to build a server.  We are looking at
> ways to decrease this installation time.  One of the methods we were
> contemplating is to use ADSM to create an image after we had completed the
> initial server installation.  Have any of you ever done this?  Had any
success?
>
> We could build out first server and use some sort of dummy name.  After we
> install all of our additional software, we could then run a full ARCHIVE of
the
> C Drive.  When it came time for the next server install, we could install a
> minimal version of NT in a different directory than NT is normally installed
in.
>
> This server would be INITIALLY be named as the dummy server name.  Next, we
> would install the ADSM client.  We could then do a full retrieve of the
original
>
> image.  We could then reboot from the normal NT directory and change the
server
> name and assign the correct IP address.
>
> I know there are more steps than this required, but I was trying to keep
this
> short.  Any major flaws in this?  I'm thinking this may cut our time down by
at
> least half.  Thanks in advance!!!
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>