Puppet users - Mar 2010 - Doc site upgrades and Wiki question

Hi folks,

I''ve been working on adding content to http://docs.reductivelabs.com
(not pushed just yet) ... the goal for docs.reductivelabs.com is to be
a great place to point people learning puppet, that produces a good
gentle introduction but also contains the meat
of the information, all in one place, without going too far in, but
that also shows you where you can go.  It''s all open for contribution
(Creative Commons) of course and is based on what is being done with
the Ruby on Rails guides -- contributions can be made using the
"feedback" tab, filing a bug in redmine, or just forking the project
on github and sending a pull request.    Most important to mention,
90%+ of the content is borrowed from the Wiki and would not be
possible without it.   A huge huge huge thanks there, cannot be said
enough.   We have awesome resources adding to our docs and they are
tremendous asset to Puppet Land.

So in getting together what you would need to learn Puppet, and making
it a bit more organized (splitting some articles, merging others,
etc), it''s obvious that if we also have this content on the Wiki the
two will drift apart, and we would like to minimize the pain of this
happening.    We''d also like to keep all the good things we have going
with the Wiki going.    So, seeing we have a process for maintaining
things on the new docsite, and we only intend the docsite for content
that will not change /as/ often,  what does everyone think at moving
some of the more introductory pages into the doc site?   These would
be things like:

    * About Puppet
    * Adding Facts
    * Development Complete Resource Example
    * Development Creating Custom Types
    * Development Practical Types
    * Development Provider Development
    * Exported Resources
    * External Nodes
    * File Serving Configuration (maybe)
    * Getting Started
    * Module Organisation
    * Module Standards
    * Plugins In Modules
    * Style Guide
    * Using Mongrel (linking to other content still on Wiki)
    * Using Passenger (linking to other content still on Wiki)
    * Using Stored Configuration
    * Using Tags (maybe)
    etc

Things that would never move to the doc site would be things like:
    * Recipes / Patterns
    * FAQ (we may include a subset of the FAQ on the docsite for the
most common items)
    * Best Practices At X
    * Cool Strategies for X
    * Making X work on my platform
    * What I Did With X
    * Workaround for X
    * Development Lifecycle
    * Testing information
    * Who Is Using Puppet
    * etc
    (basically most of the Wiki)

Doc site would still link to the Wiki and make folks know of all the
content that was there.   We''d also try to spotlight some of the key
Wiki topics.

For those we''re thinking about moving, I would suggest leaving all the
actual Wiki pages in place (breaking bookmarks would be terrible), and
replacing their content with a link to the docs page for the content
that is also duplicated there.   Where the page content was not wholly
reproduced on the doc site, we would do this to that page.
(absolutely no information loss).   The doc site also explains how to
contribute on page 1 (it will when I push it), and we also add this
info to the WIki -- including about what goes where.

We would definitely want to keep any rapidly evolving content on the
Wiki, and the Wiki is definitely the place for site specifc best
practices suggestions, modules, and all that other good stuff.

We then keep our Wiki collaboration space rocking, and we also have a
good resource to point new users to.     (I also intend to make a
zipfile of our docs site, so it''s easy to download and take with you,
on a plane, etc).

Does that seem reasonable?    Other suggestions?


--Michael

-- 
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 Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Michael DeHaan
<michael@reductivelabs.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I''ve been working on adding content to
http://docs.reductivelabs.com
> (not pushed just yet) ... the goal for docs.reductivelabs.com is to be
> a great place to point people learning puppet, that produces a good
> gentle introduction but also contains the meat
> of the information, all in one place, without going too far in, but
> that also shows you where you can go.  It''s all open for
contribution
> (Creative Commons) of course and is based on what is being done with
> the Ruby on Rails guides -- contributions can be made using the
> "feedback" tab, filing a bug in redmine, or just forking the
project
> on github and sending a pull request.    Most important to mention,
> 90%+ of the content is borrowed from the Wiki and would not be
> possible without it.   A huge huge huge thanks there, cannot be said
> enough.   We have awesome resources adding to our docs and they are
> tremendous asset to Puppet Land.
>
> So in getting together what you would need to learn Puppet, and making
> it a bit more organized (splitting some articles, merging others,
> etc), it''s obvious that if we also have this content on the Wiki
the
> two will drift apart, and we would like to minimize the pain of this
> happening.    We''d also like to keep all the good things we have
going
> with the Wiki going.    So, seeing we have a process for maintaining
> things on the new docsite, and we only intend the docsite for content
> that will not change /as/ often,  what does everyone think at moving
> some of the more introductory pages into the doc site?   These would
> be things like:
>
>    * About Puppet
>    * Adding Facts
>    * Development Complete Resource Example
>    * Development Creating Custom Types
>    * Development Practical Types
>    * Development Provider Development
>    * Exported Resources
>    * External Nodes
>    * File Serving Configuration (maybe)
>    * Getting Started
>    * Module Organisation
>    * Module Standards
>    * Plugins In Modules
>    * Style Guide
>    * Using Mongrel (linking to other content still on Wiki)
>    * Using Passenger (linking to other content still on Wiki)
I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server Options"
page with a brief overview of the different options and the benefits
of each.

It''s really quite complicated at the moment

Webrick
Apache with Passenger
Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
Pound with mongrel
Nginx with mongrel

and this is only going to explode once JRuby becomes a viable option....


>    * Using Stored Configuration
>    * Using Tags (maybe)
>    etc
>
> Things that would never move to the doc site would be things like:
>    * Recipes / Patterns
>    * FAQ (we may include a subset of the FAQ on the docsite for the
> most common items)
>    * Best Practices At X
>    * Cool Strategies for X
>    * Making X work on my platform
>    * What I Did With X
>    * Workaround for X
>    * Development Lifecycle
>    * Testing information
>    * Who Is Using Puppet
>    * etc
>    (basically most of the Wiki)
>
> Doc site would still link to the Wiki and make folks know of all the
> content that was there.   We''d also try to spotlight some of the
key
> Wiki topics.
>
> For those we''re thinking about moving, I would suggest leaving all
the
> actual Wiki pages in place (breaking bookmarks would be terrible), and
> replacing their content with a link to the docs page for the content
> that is also duplicated there.   Where the page content was not wholly
> reproduced on the doc site, we would do this to that page.
> (absolutely no information loss).   The doc site also explains how to
> contribute on page 1 (it will when I push it), and we also add this
> info to the WIki -- including about what goes where.
>
> We would definitely want to keep any rapidly evolving content on the
> Wiki, and the Wiki is definitely the place for site specifc best
> practices suggestions, modules, and all that other good stuff.
>
> We then keep our Wiki collaboration space rocking, and we also have a
> good resource to point new users to.     (I also intend to make a
> zipfile of our docs site, so it''s easy to download and take with
you,
> on a plane, etc).
>
> Does that seem reasonable?    Other suggestions?
>
>
> --Michael
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


-- 
nigel

-- 
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.

> I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server
Options"
> page with a brief overview of the different options and the benefits
> of each.
>
> It''s really quite complicated at the moment
>
> Webrick
> Apache with Passenger
> Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
> Pound with mongrel
> Nginx with mongrel
Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me if
I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and learn how it
works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t, use
Mongrel?).

(Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)

I like choice, but I think it would be great if we could have a
favored option, for people who didn''t want to do the research.

Right now that seems to be Apache+Passenger, but not saying we
couldn''t change that later.

(and if perchance jruby is easier to use from distro packages and
meets requirements, more power to it?  or no?)

--Michael

-- 
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 Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Michael DeHaan
<michael@reductivelabs.com> wrote:
>> I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server
Options"
>> page with a brief overview of the different options and the benefits
>> of each.
>>
>> It''s really quite complicated at the moment
>>
>> Webrick
>> Apache with Passenger
>> Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
>> Pound with mongrel
>> Nginx with mongrel
>
> Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me if
> I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and learn
how it
> works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t, use
> Mongrel?).
That sounds pretty much right to me, although I''d be clearer about
"if
you have more than a handful of hosts, get off webrick as fast as you
can".
>
> (Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)
I think I was one of the only people using Pound... ?  I really liked
it, but the upstream developers were resistant to patches, and
horrible at communicating. I believe they may have finally rejected
that patch mentioned in the wiki due to claiming Mongrel was breaking
RFCs (which is entirely possible).

>
> I like choice, but I think it would be great if we could have a
> favored option, for people who didn''t want to do the research.
>
> Right now that seems to be Apache+Passenger, but not saying we
> couldn''t change that later.
>
> (and if perchance jruby is easier to use from distro packages and
> meets requirements, more power to it?  or no?)
>
> --Michael
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


-- 
nigel

-- 
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 19/03/10 20:31, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>> I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server
Options"
>> page with a brief overview of the different options and the benefits
>> of each.
>>
>> It''s really quite complicated at the moment
>>
>> Webrick
>> Apache with Passenger
>> Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
>> Pound with mongrel
>> Nginx with mongrel
> 
> Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me if
> I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and learn
how it
> works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t, use
> Mongrel?).
> 
> (Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)
I do use nginx (and mongrel). I got some nginx patches accepted upstream
for a complete support of CRL, so it is even easier to now use nginx for
a master. Nginx also allows file content offloading relatively easily
(see my blog for an example, more to come soon on this front).
> I like choice, but I think it would be great if we could have a
> favored option, for people who didn''t want to do the research.
I think the current consensus is for Passenger. But I''m wondering if
it''s because it''s the REE companion or because it''s
superior to mongrel.

BTW, there is a well maintained Passenger module for nginx.
> Right now that seems to be Apache+Passenger, but not saying we
> couldn''t change that later.
Correct.
> (and if perchance jruby is easier to use from distro packages and
> meets requirements, more power to it?  or no?)
I''m able to run puppet on JRuby, but it seems I''m the only one
:-)
So, I guess it''s not yet ready for showtime.

The stack is relatively easy to come with:
 - a reverse proxy (mainly to be an ssl endpoint)
 - a servlet container (ie jetty or glassfish (available in a gem)
 - a glue to rack (jruby-rack, usually embedded in the previous layer)
 - puppet
 - jruby

-- 
Brice Figureau
My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/

-- 
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 Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Brice Figureau
<brice-puppet@daysofwonder.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/10 20:31, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>>> I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server
Options"
>>> page with a brief overview of the different options and the
benefits
>>> of each.
>>>
>>> It''s really quite complicated at the moment
>>>
>>> Webrick
>>> Apache with Passenger
>>> Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
>>> Pound with mongrel
>>> Nginx with mongrel
>>
>> Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me if
>> I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and
learn how it
>> works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t, use
>> Mongrel?).
>>
>> (Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)
>
> I do use nginx (and mongrel). I got some nginx patches accepted upstream
> for a complete support of CRL, so it is even easier to now use nginx for
> a master. Nginx also allows file content offloading relatively easily
> (see my blog for an example, more to come soon on this front).
Where''s this entry Brice?

>> I like choice, but I think it would be great if we could have a
>> favored option, for people who didn''t want to do the research.
>
> I think the current consensus is for Passenger. But I''m wondering
if
> it''s because it''s the REE companion or because
it''s superior to mongrel.
For me it''s because it is easier to manage and monitor.

I''m not even using REE at the moment on Hardy, benchmarking
isn''t
showing enough of an improvement to justify maintaining the packages.
> BTW, there is a well maintained Passenger module for nginx.
>
>> Right now that seems to be Apache+Passenger, but not saying we
>> couldn''t change that later.
>
> Correct.
>
>> (and if perchance jruby is easier to use from distro packages and
>> meets requirements, more power to it?  or no?)
>
> I''m able to run puppet on JRuby, but it seems I''m the
only one :-)
> So, I guess it''s not yet ready for showtime.
I have made more progress since we last chatted, but got distracted
with other things at work.

I don''t have all functionality, but I have most things working fine,
and the bits that are seem *much* faster.
>
> The stack is relatively easy to come with:
>  - a reverse proxy (mainly to be an ssl endpoint)
>  - a servlet container (ie jetty or glassfish (available in a gem)
>  - a glue to rack (jruby-rack, usually embedded in the previous layer)
>  - puppet
>  - jruby
>
> --
> Brice Figureau
> My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/
>
> --
> 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.
>
>


-- 
nigel

-- 
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.

> Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me if
> I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and learn
how it
> works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t, use
> Mongrel?).
This is imho a good advice.
> (Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)
As passenger (and puppet) haven''t been where they are now I started  
with mongrel and nginx. Since Brice''s nginx patch(es) and my  
puppetmaster init.d script patch (multiple ports automagically start  
with mongrel) setting up nginx and mongrel (at least on redhat based  
systems) is _very_ easy.

Due to these historically reasons I''m still with nginx and mongrel and
very happy. If I might finally switch to REE (any RPMs around anywhere  
which work in combination with passenger?) I might want to use  
passenger (maybe in combination with nginx, which I really like if I  
have no other http stuff to do), but first I''d like to get things like
serving files directly with nginx working as this seems to be the  
bigger issue than the underlying ruby.

The main issue with passenger is/was (recently some popped up) the  
absence of usable RPMs. Hence as long as passenger is not that  
integrated or integrateable in enterprise distributions you will have  
a lot of people that will somehow (due to stupid policies) have to  
stick with what they can do with the existing packages. As they might  
be lucky to be allowed to get recent puppet packages on their systems,  
they might even have more problems to get passenger packages on their  
systems. Hence these people still would be happy to go with  
nginx/apache and mongrel.

cheers pete

-- 
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 19/03/10 23:38, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Brice Figureau
> <brice-puppet@daysofwonder.com> wrote:
>> On 19/03/10 20:31, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>>>> I vote that what we really need is a "Puppetmaster Server
Options"
>>>> page with a brief overview of the different options and the
benefits
>>>> of each.
>>>>
>>>> It''s really quite complicated at the moment
>>>>
>>>> Webrick
>>>> Apache with Passenger
>>>> Apache with mod_proxy and mongrel
>>>> Pound with mongrel
>>>> Nginx with mongrel
>>>
>>> Yeah, if we generalized our mailing list advice now, it (correct me
if
>>> I''m wrong) seems to imply "start out with webrick and
learn how it
>>> works, if you can, upgrade to Passenger, and if you can''t,
use
>>> Mongrel?).
>>>
>>> (Also ... Are many folks are using Pound and Nginx?)
>>
>> I do use nginx (and mongrel). I got some nginx patches accepted
upstream
>> for a complete support of CRL, so it is even easier to now use nginx
for
>> a master. Nginx also allows file content offloading relatively easily
>> (see my blog for an example, more to come soon on this front).
> 
> Where''s this entry Brice?
Look for "File serving offloading":
http://www.masterzen.fr/2010/01/28/puppet-memory-usage-not-a-fatality/

I plan to have another article today or tomorrow about more offloading
to the web server.
>>> I like choice, but I think it would be great if we could have a
>>> favored option, for people who didn''t want to do the
research.
>>
>> I think the current consensus is for Passenger. But I''m
wondering if
>> it''s because it''s the REE companion or because
it''s superior to mongrel.
> 
> For me it''s because it is easier to manage and monitor.
> 
> I''m not even using REE at the moment on Hardy, benchmarking
isn''t
> showing enough of an improvement to justify maintaining the packages.
REE is better on the memory front if you pass it the correct options.
>> BTW, there is a well maintained Passenger module for nginx.
>>
>>> Right now that seems to be Apache+Passenger, but not saying we
>>> couldn''t change that later.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> (and if perchance jruby is easier to use from distro packages and
>>> meets requirements, more power to it?  or no?)
>>
>> I''m able to run puppet on JRuby, but it seems I''m the
only one :-)
>> So, I guess it''s not yet ready for showtime.
> 
> I have made more progress since we last chatted, but got distracted
> with other things at work.
> 
> I don''t have all functionality, but I have most things working
fine,
> and the bits that are seem *much* faster.
Good :-)
See my answers in puppet-dev.
-- 
Brice Figureau
My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/

-- 
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.