Is there a way to deploy/install only the client portion of puppet? I looked through install.rb and didn''t see any specific options, though I seem to recall another Linux dist that separated them out. It''s possible I''m approaching this incorrectly, though it doesn''t make a lot of sense to install puppetmasterd on systems that are only clients. Another option, perhaps, is to have puppet actually update the client portion on the managed systems. Has anyone done this? Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On 1/16/10 11:33 AM, Forrie wrote:> Is there a way to deploy/install only the client portion of puppet? > > I looked through install.rb and didn''t see any specific options, > though I seem to recall another Linux dist that separated them out. > > It''s possible I''m approaching this incorrectly, though it doesn''t make > a lot of sense to install puppetmasterd on systems that are only > clients. Another option, perhaps, is to have puppet actually update > the client portion on the managed systems. Has anyone done this? > > > Thanks. >rm /path/to/puppetmasterd -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17/01/10 6:33 AM, Forrie wrote:> Is there a way to deploy/install only the client portion of puppet?Not via install.rb> It''s possible I''m approaching this incorrectly, though it doesn''t make > a lot of sense to install puppetmasterd on systems that are only > clients. Another option, perhaps, is to have puppet actually update > the client portion on the managed systems. Has anyone done this?IMHO - yes - don''t install via source! It''s not scalable and it leads to issues when upgrading. Use your operating system or distribution''s packaging system instead. You can then easily use Puppet to manage itself on clients - in fact I recommend it as an approach. Regards James Turnbull - -- Author of: * Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin) * Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook) * Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios) * Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBS1JTDiFa/lDkFHAyAQK5SggAjf7+ZnvrgST1qVmmRJWXekMORi7rnAsS jtFdFjzccr0/DK/wEUFGVZeq++iGDWO8RRGWmd9rUin0G4DakbJZwXDZd0FUuvLJ ZaB8gfLQazE3YJ5g0jvM6C+mhFogsLIoQxTQf/sALU//+hSp4CkKRqeD4zLrZmrP FL1lbd3eZazRvkxbwHjJ+Hxc5g1MsZo97rM4B4pj1Dp/JUWFGbcQuqtlTcMAZOhP w6/NcBlVciIc1oZxGWBUVLcQVQDXvA2S3nm3x/0QPGzDHw/NG9RMh1GkAvdhVREB WTANo4OPvx1bIg4JV233rZybUR5jLbHMqUflUkQO1zzytp04fgOG0A==pBT1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Forrest Aldrich
2010-Jan-17 00:27 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Installing only the puppet client
On 1/16/10 7:00 PM, James Turnbull wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 17/01/10 6:33 AM, Forrie wrote: > >> Is there a way to deploy/install only the client portion of puppet? >> > Not via install.rb > > >> It''s possible I''m approaching this incorrectly, though it doesn''t make >> a lot of sense to install puppetmasterd on systems that are only >> clients. Another option, perhaps, is to have puppet actually update >> the client portion on the managed systems. Has anyone done this? >> > IMHO - yes - don''t install via source! It''s not scalable and it > leads to issues when upgrading. > > Use your operating system or distribution''s packaging system instead. > > You can then easily use Puppet to manage itself on clients - in fact > I recommend it as an approach. > > >Thanks for your reply! I think having Puppet distribute itself to clients would be ideal. One less headache. I generally don''t like to rely on external packaging for certain software packages -- it complicates things when I want to keep up to date; and then, when I do want more current code, I just end up compiling it separately anyway. Here''s what I''ve been working on today; perhaps you''ll have some feedback (it''s relevant to the post). I''m installing ruby, puppet, gems (under ruby) under a central directory structure. From there, I can either rsync that to other systems or NFS mount it. Then, use the local system "alternatives" command to point the relevant executables (and --slave definitions). Each system can have it''s own puppet configuration in /etc that''s managed via Puppet. An example: /local/company/puppet /sbin /bin /local/company/ruby /bin /lib [ everything from ruby, including rubygems and individual gems ] Using "alternatives", do something like this: /usr/sbin/alternatives --install /usr/bin/ruby ruby /local/company/ruby/bin/ruby 1 \ --slave /usr/bin/rdoc rdoc /local/company/ruby/bin/rdoc \ --slave /usr/bin/ri ri /local/company/ruby/bin/ri \ --slave /usr/bin/irb irb /local/company/ruby/bin/irb \ --slave /usr/bin/erb erb /local/company/ruby/bin/erb \ --slave /usr/bin/testrb testrb /local/company/ruby/bin/testrb Of course, this relies upon a specific variant of Linux (in our case, Redhat), but it could still work otherwise. One problem I''ve observed is ruby will need to be "installed" in /local/company/ruby first, where I later rename it to ruby.1.8.7 with a symlink of "ruby" so that the installation is consistent with shebang paths. Thanks, Forrest -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17/01/10 11:27 AM, Forrest Aldrich wrote:> I generally don''t like to rely on external packaging for certain > software packages -- it complicates things when I want to keep up to > date; and then, when I do want more current code, I just end up > compiling it separately anyway.It''s easy to create your own packages from the source - certainly debs and RPMs for example - the spec file is even distributed with the source.> Here''s what I''ve been working on today; perhaps you''ll have some > feedback (it''s relevant to the post). I''m installing ruby, puppet, > gems (under ruby) under a central directory structure. From there, I > can either rsync that to other systems or NFS mount it. Then, use the > local system "alternatives" command to point the relevant executables > (and --slave definitions). Each system can have it''s own puppet > configuration in /etc that''s managed via Puppet. An example:What''s your intent here? What do you get out of this that a standard Ruby, Puppet, etc installation doesn''t provide? Especially as you can write a manifest to manage all the packages, gems, etc, etc and avoid what feels like quite a complex solution?> One problem I''ve observed is ruby will need to be "installed" in > /local/company/ruby first, where I later rename it to ruby.1.8.7 with a > symlink of "ruby" so that the installation is consistent with shebang paths.Yeah - complex. :) Regards James Turnbull - -- Author of: * Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin) * Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook) * Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios) * Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBS1JdASFa/lDkFHAyAQKWQQf/Q9M7hILgAkxkO0/jQoTGhpyXmqiu20ZE z2iWlwPJV007NiU9n92s37SZJRIM5AriEg6Bb2xvLuWuooiuB0n7cf7aXnJ6vvWW Ka+/I7rmsW48EpG1BEK10qVH0e/PjDpbvMdvOIIXgIRQEUfUnsQIMNYTcyCZx5f1 Rcieb5mfpiHgXdTSvaCfnYVKEPXx101+37gqpDSCgJZbJZuCEG0VWeMHaJX/nzAY 3XoA70p090Uygpvd6onhDoZdplYoNuAnp3iQ8U0rZSQPmkd/II8ZGh7tkWGlr2l3 flYVPZMG7uCDXOudHG8NhBb91xjcR/bmeFjtSbhngQan1bNPuXdSEQ==93+N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Forrest Aldrich
2010-Jan-17 01:02 UTC
Re: [Puppet Users] Installing only the puppet client
On 1/16/10 7:42 PM, James Turnbull wrote:> [ ... ] > It''s easy to create your own packages from the source - certainly > debs and RPMs for example - the spec file is even distributed with > the source. >Ha! I didn''t even see that in the conf/ directory :)>> Here''s what I''ve been working on today; perhaps you''ll have some >> feedback (it''s relevant to the post). I''m installing ruby, puppet, >> gems (under ruby) under a central directory structure. From there, I >> can either rsync that to other systems or NFS mount it. Then, use the >> local system "alternatives" command to point the relevant executables >> (and --slave definitions). Each system can have it''s own puppet >> configuration in /etc that''s managed via Puppet. An example: >> > What''s your intent here? What do you get out of this that a standard > Ruby, Puppet, etc installation doesn''t provide? Especially as you > can write a manifest to manage all the packages, gems, etc, etc and > avoid what feels like quite a complex solution? >Don''t rain on my complex parade! :-) My intent was to install the executables in one place and share this amongst the Redhat systems either via rsync directly or via NFS, using alternatives to link to them accordingly. And reducing the dependency on OS-provided packaging of things like Ruby, where vendors are generally several revisions behind. In the past, I''ve been bitten by "system skew" where, even under the best conditions, many systems that are supposed to be the same end up having minor differences. This is what got me into isolating a few tools as above.> >> One problem I''ve observed is ruby will need to be "installed" in >> /local/company/ruby first, where I later rename it to ruby.1.8.7 with a >> symlink of "ruby" so that the installation is consistent with shebang paths. >> > Yeah - complex. :) >You are, of course, right :-) Thanks, Forrest -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.