Re: [Puppet Users] Puppet + APT, I am lost...

Nigel Kersten
Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:02:13 -0000

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Silviu Paragina <silviu@paragina.ro>
wrote:
>  On 06.09.2010 21:03, Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Silviu
Paragina<silviu@paragina.ro>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> As it was said earlier if you have a ensure =>  latest you
should
>>> probably
>>> have (also) a cron job for updates.
>>
>> I think it''s much more difficult to manage multiple schedules,
and to
>> deal with inconsistencies when people manually run Puppet at times
>> that aren''t in sync with your cron job than it is for Puppet
to simply
>> ensure the appropriate commands are run before your packages are
>> installed.
>>
> Could you be a little more specific, I''m not sure if we are
referring to the
> same cron job. I''m not sure if you are referring to a
"apt-get update" or a
> "puppet" cron job. I was referring to a apt-get update cron.

Yep. That''s the one I was talking about.

>
> You are right of course. If the apt-get update cron fails (or it
hasn''t got
> the chance to run), puppet will have no ideea that it failed, and will
still
> run the package resources, which in some scenarios might be catastrophic.
> But on the other hand if it just works like that and you really really need
> the resources, you might consider using it. Thinking about it an apt-get
> update shouldn''t have more than 3-4 small files per repository if
the cache
> is hit, and otherwise it should have at most 10 files around a few hundred
> bytes (in case of incremental repositories, not sure if incremental is the
> right technical word, but I hope you understand what I meant) so there
isn''t
> much of a penalty there, more supporting your solution. I should of
probably
> noted this in my answer, but most of it was already discussed in the thread
> already.
>
> Now my solution was proposed in the idea that under no circumstance apt-get
> update should be run every run (and, yes, I didn''t take into
account that
> the reason for that might be wrong).
>
> I feel that I should point out again, that the solution is hackish and as
> such, if used, it should be used only in a single module, preferably in a
> single manifest, detailing in comments all the reasons for doing things the
> way it does. And most of all if somebody doesn''t follow the
convention it
> all goes down the drain. :) So my solution should be avoided if possible,
> but if it can not be avoided, it works with the notes above.

I''m pretty sure we''re in agreement here :)



>
>
>
> Silviu
>
> --
> 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