In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across the board. Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from NFS. For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and x86_64. Thoughts? -- 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.
Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share "/opt/csw" Seems to work fine so far. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote:> In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across > the board. > > Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from > NFS. > > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and > x86_64. > > Thoughts? > > -- > 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. > >-- 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.
Other than local configs for each system, were there any other issues. For our application, we mostly use RHEL with only two Solaris systems (that will be going away). Doing it this way will solve the distribution versioning and update "problem" for which there is no one solution (Enterprise version similarly). On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote:> Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and > mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share > "/opt/csw" > Seems to work fine so far. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an > > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across > > the board. > > > Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For > > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and > > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from > > NFS. > > > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just > > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby > > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and > > x86_64. > > > Thoughts? > > > -- > > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.-- 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.
We had no issues.. but then again, the OpenCSW packagers did all the work! So I guess all I can tell you is that is ought to work... you might have to tweak things here an there to make everything use the right paths, but it ought to work. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote:> Other than local configs for each system, were there any other > issues. For our application, we mostly use RHEL with only two > Solaris systems (that will be going away). > > Doing it this way will solve the distribution versioning and update > "problem" for which there is no one solution (Enterprise version > similarly). > > > > On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and >> mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share >> "/opt/csw" >> Seems to work fine so far. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an >> > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across >> > the board. >> >> > Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For >> > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and >> > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from >> > NFS. >> >> > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just >> > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby >> > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and >> > x86_64. >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > -- >> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- > 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. > >-- 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.
Do you have puppet monitor that particular NFS mount and do you mount it read-only (presumably). On Apr 13, 3:54 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote:> We had no issues.. but then again, the OpenCSW packagers did all the work! > So I guess all I can tell you is that is ought to work... you might > have to tweak things here an there to make everything use the right > paths, but it ought to work. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Other than local configs for each system, were there any other > > issues. For our application, we mostly use RHEL with only two > > Solaris systems (that will be going away). > > > Doing it this way will solve the distribution versioning and update > > "problem" for which there is no one solution (Enterprise version > > similarly). > > > On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and > >> mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share > >> "/opt/csw" > >> Seems to work fine so far. > > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an > >> > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across > >> > the board. > > >> > Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For > >> > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and > >> > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from > >> > NFS. > > >> > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just > >> > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby > >> > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and > >> > x86_64. > > >> > Thoughts? > > >> > -- > >> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.-- 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.
In my case, the mount (/opt/csw) is defined in the "/etc/vfstab" of all the Solaris machines. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote:> Do you have puppet monitor that particular NFS mount and do you mount > it read-only (presumably). > > > > On Apr 13, 3:54 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We had no issues.. but then again, the OpenCSW packagers did all the work! >> So I guess all I can tell you is that is ought to work... you might >> have to tweak things here an there to make everything use the right >> paths, but it ought to work. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Other than local configs for each system, were there any other >> > issues. For our application, we mostly use RHEL with only two >> > Solaris systems (that will be going away). >> >> > Doing it this way will solve the distribution versioning and update >> > "problem" for which there is no one solution (Enterprise version >> > similarly). >> >> > On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thats how we deployed to our Solaris hosts, ruby, puppet and >> >> mcollective, all from OpenCSW, all on a readonly mounted share >> >> "/opt/csw" >> >> Seems to work fine so far. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > In our environ, there are several services that are deployed via an >> >> > NFS mount, so that the executables and configs are consistent across >> >> > the board. >> >> >> > Is there any reason why this couldn''t be done with Puppet? For >> >> > example, each individual system would contain its own /etc/puppet and >> >> > rc.d and pid files -- but the primary deployment would come from >> >> > NFS. >> >> >> > For that matter, as Enterprise Puppet is doing, why couldn''t we just >> >> > mirror that installation model and install our own version of ruby >> >> > under that mount point, and walla. A separate mount for x86 and >> >> > x86_64. >> >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. >> >> > -- >> > 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- > 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. > >-- 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.
If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem with that ruby. Thanks, Mohamed. -- 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.
How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with "pe-". I suppose you''ll find out what dependencies are missing if you try running it on another host via the NFS mount :-) On Apr 13, 6:46 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote:> If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it > into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem > with that ruby. > > Thanks, > Mohamed.-- 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.
there should be dependencies for REE.. is all goes under /opt/ruby-enterprise. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote:> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one > installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also > include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. > Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with > "pe-". > > I suppose you''ll find out what dependencies are missing if you try > running it on another host via the NFS mount :-) > > > > On Apr 13, 6:46 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it >> into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem >> with that ruby. >> >> Thanks, >> Mohamed. > > -- > 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. > >-- 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.
and I was assuming puppet/facter/any other gems, would be installed as gems using REE. thats how I did it on Solaris and it works fine. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrhazi@gmail.com> wrote:> there should be dependencies for REE.. is all goes under /opt/ruby-enterprise. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote: >> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one >> installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also >> include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. >> Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with >> "pe-". >> >> I suppose you''ll find out what dependencies are missing if you try >> running it on another host via the NFS mount :-) >> >> >> >> On Apr 13, 6:46 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it >>> into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem >>> with that ruby. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mohamed. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >-- 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.
Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be work fine too. Thanks, Mohamed, On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrhazi@gmail.com> wrote:> and I was assuming puppet/facter/any other gems, would be installed as > gems using REE. > thats how I did it on Solaris and it works fine. > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrhazi@gmail.com> wrote: >> there should be dependencies for REE.. is all goes under /opt/ruby-enterprise. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Forrie <forrie@gmail.com> wrote: >>> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one >>> installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also >>> include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. >>> Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with >>> "pe-". >>> >>> I suppose you''ll find out what dependencies are missing if you try >>> running it on another host via the NFS mount :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 13, 6:46 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it >>>> into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem >>>> with that ruby. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mohamed. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >-- 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 was referring to the RPMs that ship with Enterprise Puppet -- I haven''t poked through the code, but if they get installed into the system, then that would pretty much negate (or make more difficult) creating an NFS-deployed Puppet for use. On Apr 25, 9:43 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote:> Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but > used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, > including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the > whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS > I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be > work fine too. > > Thanks, > Mohamed, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > and I was assuming puppet/facter/any other gems, would be installed as > > gems using REE. > > thats how I did it on Solaris and it works fine. > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> there should be dependencies for REE.. is all goes under /opt/ruby-enterprise. > > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Forrie <for...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one > >>> installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also > >>> include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. > >>> Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with > >>> "pe-". > > >>> I suppose you''ll find out what dependencies are missing if you try > >>> running it on another host via the NFS mount :-) > > >>> On Apr 13, 6:46 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi <lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> If I were to do this on Linux, I would use Enterprise Ruby, install it > >>>> into /opt/companyname/ruby-enterprise, then install puppet as a gem > >>>> with that ruby. > > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Mohamed. > > >>> -- > >>> 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.-- 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.
Hello, On 4/25/11 2:13 PM, Forrie wrote:> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one > installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also > include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. > Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with > "pe-".Actually, we (Puppet) do not package Enterprise Ruby; however, we do package Ruby 1.8.7 and do indeed name the rpm "pe-ruby". This is done to differentiate the Puppet "stack" Ruby from a possible pre-installed vendor Ruby. Puppet Enterprise''s (pe) Ruby binary can be found here "/opt/puppet/bin/ruby" On 4/26/11 12:55 PM, Forrie wrote:> I was referring to the RPMs that ship with Enterprise Puppet -- I > haven''t poked through the code, but if they get installed into the > system, then that would pretty much negate (or make more difficult) > creating an NFS-deployed Puppet for use.We have not specifically tested a single shared deployment as described by Mohamed (below). We do support and test installation, on all our supported operating systems, from a RO NFS mount point. Cheers, Dominic Maraglia Puppet Labs> > On Apr 25, 9:43 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi<lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but >> used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, >> including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the >> whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS >> I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be >> work fine too. >> >> Thanks, >> Mohamed, >>-- 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.
Thanks for the feedback. It will make life a lot easier if I can deploy/maintain puppet via a RO NFS mount point. I presume you have the local stuff like /etc/ init.d/puppetmaster /etc/sysconfig/puppet /etc/puppet/puppet.conf managed separately and located on each system? I thought it might be interesting to have the configs on NFS, but I don''t know if that would scale very well. Thanks! On Apr 26, 8:13 pm, Dominic Maraglia <domi...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:> Hello, > > On 4/25/11 2:13 PM, Forrie wrote: > > > How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one > > installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also > > include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. > > Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with > > "pe-". > > Actually, we (Puppet) do not package Enterprise Ruby; however, we do > package Ruby 1.8.7 and do indeed name the rpm "pe-ruby". This is done > to differentiate the Puppet "stack" Ruby from a possible pre-installed > vendor Ruby. Puppet Enterprise''s (pe) Ruby binary can be found here > "/opt/puppet/bin/ruby" > > On 4/26/11 12:55 PM, Forrie wrote: > > > I was referring to the RPMs that ship with Enterprise Puppet -- I > > haven''t poked through the code, but if they get installed into the > > system, then that would pretty much negate (or make more difficult) > > creating an NFS-deployed Puppet for use. > > We have not specifically tested a single shared deployment as described > by Mohamed (below). We do support and test installation, on all our > supported operating systems, from a RO NFS mount point. > > Cheers, > Dominic Maraglia > Puppet Labs > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 9:43 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi<lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but > >> used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, > >> including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the > >> whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS > >> I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be > >> work fine too. > > >> Thanks, > >> Mohamed,-- 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.
Also, do you just install the puppet from the src or include the GEM in the ruby distribution. I would think managing it from src might be better, if it''s just an NFS RO mount point. -- 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 a "build" machine: - Install an independent version of Ruby, I would recommend http://www.rubyenterpriseedition.com/ Make sure *that* ruby is installed fully into one directory, such as /my-opt/ruby-enterprise, nothing in /usr/this or /var/that or whatever..... - Using *that* freshly installed ruby, install facter and puppet as gems. Make this newly installed puppet work.... this puppet would create all its stuff under /etc/, /var.... and so on, it would create anything new under the above mentioned install dir (/my-opt) tar the latter dir (/my-opt), and take it to your NFS server and share it from there, readonly to all hosts..... hope this helps. Mohamed. -- 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 4/28/11 11:57 AM, Forrie wrote:> Thanks for the feedback. > > It will make life a lot easier if I can deploy/maintain puppet via a > RO NFS mount point. I presume you have the local stuff like /etc/ > init.d/puppetmaster /etc/sysconfig/puppet /etc/puppet/puppet.conf > managed separately and located on each system?Correct.> I thought it might be interesting to have the configs on NFS, but I > don''t know if that would scale very well.I think this is possible, depending on the installation. Some Puppet customers have deploy Puppet world wide, cross continents, where the stateless nature of NFS would not provide a suitable solution. For smaller/geographically confined environments, a single source deployment/management method might be worth researching. Regards, Dominic> > Thanks! > > > On Apr 26, 8:13 pm, Dominic Maraglia<domi...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 4/25/11 2:13 PM, Forrie wrote: >> >>> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one >>> installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also >>> include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. >>> Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with >>> "pe-". >> Actually, we (Puppet) do not package Enterprise Ruby; however, we do >> package Ruby 1.8.7 and do indeed name the rpm "pe-ruby". This is done >> to differentiate the Puppet "stack" Ruby from a possible pre-installed >> vendor Ruby. Puppet Enterprise''s (pe) Ruby binary can be found here >> "/opt/puppet/bin/ruby" >> >> On 4/26/11 12:55 PM, Forrie wrote: >> >>> I was referring to the RPMs that ship with Enterprise Puppet -- I >>> haven''t poked through the code, but if they get installed into the >>> system, then that would pretty much negate (or make more difficult) >>> creating an NFS-deployed Puppet for use. >> We have not specifically tested a single shared deployment as described >> by Mohamed (below). We do support and test installation, on all our >> supported operating systems, from a RO NFS mount point. >> >> Cheers, >> Dominic Maraglia >> Puppet Labs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 25, 9:43 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi<lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but >>>> used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, >>>> including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the >>>> whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS >>>> I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be >>>> work fine too. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mohamed,-- 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.
Interesting information. Thanks Mohamed and Dominic for this info. Our setup is all local. In the case of an NFS mount - I don''t know how easy it would be to tell puppet to look at the NFS mount, instead of /etc/sysconfig, etc., for it''s info. In any event, you will still need to have a local /etc/init.d/puppet script. So why bother trying to store the localized items on NFS... ? On Apr 29, 12:14 pm, Dominic Maraglia <domi...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:> On 4/28/11 11:57 AM, Forrie wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > It will make life a lot easier if I can deploy/maintain puppet via a > > RO NFS mount point. I presume you have the local stuff like /etc/ > > init.d/puppetmaster /etc/sysconfig/puppet /etc/puppet/puppet.conf > > managed separately and located on each system? > Correct. > > I thought it might be interesting to have the configs on NFS, but I > > don''t know if that would scale very well. > > I think this is possible, depending on the installation. Some Puppet > customers have deploy Puppet world wide, cross continents, where the > stateless nature of NFS would not provide a suitable solution. For > smaller/geographically confined environments, a single source > deployment/management method might be worth researching. > > Regards, > > Dominic > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > On Apr 26, 8:13 pm, Dominic Maraglia<domi...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > >> Hello, > > >> On 4/25/11 2:13 PM, Forrie wrote: > > >>> How do you handle the *.rpm prerequisites of puppet itself. If one > >>> installs (deploys) puppet on an NFS mount, presumably you would also > >>> include enterprise-ruby (or standard) with those dependencies there. > >>> Enterprise Ruby seems to have rolled their own rpms, prefixed with > >>> "pe-". > >> Actually, we (Puppet) do not package Enterprise Ruby; however, we do > >> package Ruby 1.8.7 and do indeed name the rpm "pe-ruby". This is done > >> to differentiate the Puppet "stack" Ruby from a possible pre-installed > >> vendor Ruby. Puppet Enterprise''s (pe) Ruby binary can be found here > >> "/opt/puppet/bin/ruby" > > >> On 4/26/11 12:55 PM, Forrie wrote: > > >>> I was referring to the RPMs that ship with Enterprise Puppet -- I > >>> haven''t poked through the code, but if they get installed into the > >>> system, then that would pretty much negate (or make more difficult) > >>> creating an NFS-deployed Puppet for use. > >> We have not specifically tested a single shared deployment as described > >> by Mohamed (below). We do support and test installation, on all our > >> supported operating systems, from a RO NFS mount point. > > >> Cheers, > >> Dominic Maraglia > >> Puppet Labs > > >>> On Apr 25, 9:43 pm, Mohamed Lrhazi<lrh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Sorry ignore my last statement... I did not use REE on Solaris, but > >>>> used OpenCSW which packages all the software to go under /opt/csw, > >>>> including ruby and puppet, and makes it straightforward to share the > >>>> whole /opt/csw readonly over NFS > >>>> I still think REE with facter and puppet in one directory should be > >>>> work fine too. > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Mohamed,-- 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.