Puppet users - Nov 2011 - Virtual Define-based resources can only be realized once

Hi all,

here is what I have:

A module that is responsible to roll out and configure TSM (a backup
tool). Basically I need a text file that mentions all directories that
have to be backed up. I want to make it a virtual resource and let
other modules configure which parts of it have to be backed up, e.g.
configure in the apache module that the apache logs of each defined
virtual server have to be backed up:

The node.pp is configured like this:

apache::config {"virtualserver1":
    blah
}
apache:config {"virtualserver2":
    blah
}

@tsm::config { "$hostname":
    tsm_backup => ["/custdir1","/custdir2"]
}

The @ means this is a virtual Define-based resource, so it is not
implemented until it gets realized.

/custdir1 and /custdir2 denote custom directories that have to be
backed up, but aren''t managed by other puppet modules.

One module is supposed to add some directories to tsm_backup, I use
this configuration inside the apache module''s config.pp:

Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
    tsm_backup +> ["$apache_logs,$docroot],
}

I can then use this array in the template for the conf file (dsm.sys,
virtualmountpoint and Domain, for those who know TSM). Up until here
it all works fine. The config file will contain /custdir1, /custdir2, /
apache/virtualserver1/logs, /apache/virtualserver2/logs, apache/
virtualserver1/docroot, apache/virtualserver2/docroot

But when I want to configure another module to also add its
directories to tsm_backup, so basically have another module, say
postfix config.pp which contains this:

Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
    tsm_backup +> ["$postfix_logs],
}

It will either contain the apache backup dirs OR the postfix backup
dirs, depending on which <| |> it finds first, but never both.

This is unexpected, since if I use the same construct for non define-
based virtual resources, like a user (see
https://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/c13c1936dcd939fd/cff48a8c03734336
)

Does anybody have an idea?

-- 
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 Nov 15, 7:05 am, Stephan <stephan.eckwei...@admin.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is what I have:
>
> A module that is responsible to roll out and configure TSM (a backup
> tool). Basically I need a text file that mentions all directories that
> have to be backed up. I want to make it a virtual resource and let
> other modules configure which parts of it have to be backed up, e.g.
> configure in the apache module that the apache logs of each defined
> virtual server have to be backed up:
>
> The node.pp is configured like this:
>
> apache::config {"virtualserver1":
>     blah}
>
> apache:config {"virtualserver2":
>     blah
>
> }
>
> @tsm::config { "$hostname":
>     tsm_backup => ["/custdir1","/custdir2"]
>
> }
>
> The @ means this is a virtual Define-based resource, so it is not
> implemented until it gets realized.
>
> /custdir1 and /custdir2 denote custom directories that have to be
> backed up, but aren''t managed by other puppet modules.
>
> One module is supposed to add some directories to tsm_backup, I use
> this configuration inside the apache module''s config.pp:
>
> Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
>     tsm_backup +> ["$apache_logs,$docroot],
>
> }
>
> I can then use this array in the template for the conf file (dsm.sys,
> virtualmountpoint and Domain, for those who know TSM). Up until here
> it all works fine. The config file will contain /custdir1, /custdir2, /
> apache/virtualserver1/logs, /apache/virtualserver2/logs, apache/
> virtualserver1/docroot, apache/virtualserver2/docroot
>
> But when I want to configure another module to also add its
> directories to tsm_backup, so basically have another module, say
> postfix config.pp which contains this:
>
> Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
>     tsm_backup +> ["$postfix_logs],
>
> }
>
> It will either contain the apache backup dirs OR the postfix backup
> dirs, depending on which <| |> it finds first, but never both.
>
> This is unexpected, since if I use the same construct for non define-
> based virtual resources, like a user
(seehttps://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/c13...
> )
>
> Does anybody have an idea?

Your realizations conflict with each other.  One says "realize
Tsm::config[$hostname] with the *declared* groups plus $apache_logs
and $docroot", whereas the other says "realize Tsm::config[$hostname]
with the *declared* groups plus $postfix_logs".  There is no
qualitative difference from overriding via the = operator, which I''m
sure you will agree would not work either.

I would be surprised if the approach worked for built-in resources.
It was not obvious from the thread you referenced that the same
situation applies; if it does, then I recommend that you check whether
it is having the desired effect.  Even if so, I would not personally
be comfortable with it.  Because it''s both undocumented and
semantically questionable, I would assess a high risk of it breaking
from one version of puppet to another.

As for how to achieve your goal, I''d recommend one of
1) target the original resource declaration, applying whatever logic
or external data is needed to declare all the needed backup
directories in the first place, or
2) rework your design so that each module can declare its own,
independent Tsm::Config instead of relying on resource overrides.
That could be built around a fragment-based approach to building the
needed config file, or it could leverage the configuration language''s
mechanism for interpolating other files, if it has one.


John

-- 
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.

Hi John,

thanks for your reply, much appreciated.
> I recommend that you check whether
> it is having the desired effect.
Yeah, I actually double-checked before writing my post, and it did
work just fine ... but I agree with you that the term "realize" is
semantically questionable. What I actually need is a collection of
attributes across many modules to configure another module. That
doesn''t go against puppet''s declarative nature, since such a
collection would arrive at a certain set of attributes, no matter
where in the policy one starts to collect them. I''m actually not so
sure this "realize" I did for $tsm_backup doesn''t go against
the
declarative nature. If a realize is really supposed to act as you
describe and how I observe it in my tsm module, then we have something
like a race condition. Whichever spaceship is found first finalizes
the content of $tsm_backup. That''s not very declarative. The more I
think about it, the more I think I should file a bug for it. What do
you reckon?
> I would assess a high risk of it breaking
> from one version of puppet to another.
Good point.
> As for how to achieve your goal, I''d recommend one of
> 1) target the original resource declaration, applying whatever logic
> or external data is needed to declare all the needed backup
> directories in the first place
If I understand you correctly you suggest that the tsm module rolls
out a script which picks up all backup information from files rolled
out by the modules that need backups, rebuilds it into a usable conf
file for tsm and deals with making sure to restart the service and all
that. Probably possible, but kind of a nightmare to develop and
maintain. That''s actually all stuff I expect a managing software to do
for me. Bit of a puppet-managed puppet replacement. But I agree it
might be possible, I''ll think about it, thanks.
> 2) rework your design so that each module can declare its own,
> independent Tsm::Config instead of relying on resource overrides.
> That could be built around a fragment-based approach to building the
> needed config file, or it could leverage the configuration
language''s
> mechanism for interpolating other files, if it has one.
Unfortunately tsm doesn''t offer something like a include of all files
in a .d directory (I guess that''s what you mean with interpolating
other files). But what exactly do you mean with a fragment-based
approach to build the config file? Sounds like exactly what I want to
do, just don''t know a way to realize it with puppet.

Thanks again
Stephan

-- 
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 Nov 17, 10:57 am, Stephan <stephan.eckwei...@admin.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> thanks for your reply, much appreciated.
>
> > I recommend that you check whether
> > it is having the desired effect.
>
> Yeah, I actually double-checked before writing my post, and it did
> work just fine ... but I agree with you that the term "realize"
is
> semantically questionable. What I actually need is a collection of
> attributes across many modules to configure another module. That
> doesn''t go against puppet''s declarative nature, since
such a
> collection would arrive at a certain set of attributes, no matter
> where in the policy one starts to collect them. I''m actually not
so
> sure this "realize" I did for $tsm_backup doesn''t go
against the
> declarative nature. If a realize is really supposed to act as you
> describe and how I observe it in my tsm module, then we have something
> like a race condition. Whichever spaceship is found first finalizes
> the content of $tsm_backup. That''s not very declarative. The more
I
> think about it, the more I think I should file a bug for it. What do
> you reckon?

A race condition is a reasonable analogy.

I would file the ticket, provided there isn''t already one on this
topic.  At mininum, Puppet should issue a warning when it encounters
potentially conflicting realizations of the same resource.  Ideally,
it would error, but only when there is a bona fide conflict.  I
suspect, however, that it is a lot easier to detect the possibility of
a conflict (which is present whenever at least one of two or more
realizations of the same resource employs an override) than it is to
determine whether there is an conflict.

> > I would assess a high risk of it breaking
> > from one version of puppet to another.
>
> Good point.
>
> > As for how to achieve your goal, I''d recommend one of
> > 1) target the original resource declaration, applying whatever logic
> > or external data is needed to declare all the needed backup
> > directories in the first place
>
> If I understand you correctly you suggest that the tsm module rolls
> out a script which picks up all backup information from files rolled
> out by the modules that need backups, rebuilds it into a usable conf
> file for tsm and deals with making sure to restart the service and all
> that. Probably possible, but kind of a nightmare to develop and
> maintain. That''s actually all stuff I expect a managing software
to do
> for me. Bit of a puppet-managed puppet replacement. But I agree it
> might be possible, I''ll think about it, thanks.

I suppose what you describe is a possibility, but certainly not one I
would pursue.  I was intentionally vague on the precise mechanism for
putting together the needed list of backup directories because I don''t
have an adequate view of the problem and context.  Maybe there''s no
good solution available along this path.

> > 2) rework your design so that each module can declare its own,
> > independent Tsm::Config instead of relying on resource overrides.
> > That could be built around a fragment-based approach to building the
> > needed config file, or it could leverage the configuration
language''s
> > mechanism for interpolating other files, if it has one.
>
> Unfortunately tsm doesn''t offer something like a include of all
files
> in a .d directory (I guess that''s what you mean with interpolating
> other files). But what exactly do you mean with a fragment-based
> approach to build the config file? Sounds like exactly what I want to
> do, just don''t know a way to realize it with puppet.

Look up the Concat module.  That seems to be the tool most often used
for this sort of job, and several of the regulars around here can help
you out with it.


John

-- 
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 Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Stephan
<stephan.eckweiler@admin.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here is what I have:
>
> A module that is responsible to roll out and configure TSM (a backup
> tool). Basically I need a text file that mentions all directories that
> have to be backed up. I want to make it a virtual resource and let
> other modules configure which parts of it have to be backed up, e.g.
> configure in the apache module that the apache logs of each defined
> virtual server have to be backed up:
>
> The node.pp is configured like this:
>
> apache::config {"virtualserver1":
>    blah
> }
> apache:config {"virtualserver2":
>    blah
> }
>
> @tsm::config { "$hostname":
>    tsm_backup => ["/custdir1","/custdir2"]
> }
>
> The @ means this is a virtual Define-based resource, so it is not
> implemented until it gets realized.
>
> /custdir1 and /custdir2 denote custom directories that have to be
> backed up, but aren''t managed by other puppet modules.
>
> One module is supposed to add some directories to tsm_backup, I use
> this configuration inside the apache module''s config.pp:
>
> Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
>    tsm_backup +> ["$apache_logs,$docroot],
> }
>
> I can then use this array in the template for the conf file (dsm.sys,
> virtualmountpoint and Domain, for those who know TSM). Up until here
> it all works fine. The config file will contain /custdir1, /custdir2, /
> apache/virtualserver1/logs, /apache/virtualserver2/logs, apache/
> virtualserver1/docroot, apache/virtualserver2/docroot
>
> But when I want to configure another module to also add its
> directories to tsm_backup, so basically have another module, say
> postfix config.pp which contains this:
>
> Tsm::Config<| title == $hostname |> {
>    tsm_backup +> ["$postfix_logs],
> }
>
> It will either contain the apache backup dirs OR the postfix backup
> dirs, depending on which <| |> it finds first, but never both.
>
> This is unexpected, since if I use the same construct for non define-
> based virtual resources, like a user (see
>
https://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/c13c1936dcd939fd/cff48a8c03734336
> )
>
> Does anybody have an idea?
I have a very rough proof of concept that might fit (i.e. not official
and likely buggy, though feedback welcomed):
https://github.com/nanliu/puppet-export_resources

The github page have explanation some of the export resource
limitation it''s trying to solve. The idea there is for exporting
systems to have a default resource attributes:
/data/${env}/tsm_backup/hostname.yaml

Each app export it''s data to a subdirectory:
/data/${env}/tsm_backup/hostname/tsm_backup/apache.yaml
/data/${env}/tsm_backup/hostname/tsm_backup/postfix.yaml
...

and finally on the target system import_resource will create a
resource hash suitable for create_resources function
(https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-create_resources).

Thanks,

Nan

-- 
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.

Hi John,
> Look up the Concat module.  That seems to be the tool most often used
> for this sort of job, and several of the regulars around here can help
> you out with it.
Thanks so much for this hint, this does the job perfectly! All set up
now :-)

Stephan

-- 
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.