Puppet users - Apr 2012 - puppet way of handling rdist and triggers

We have an existing "management system" of sorts, based on rdist.
I''d like
to know the best way to migrate it to using puppet.

Currently, we have a local binaries tree, rdisted out nightly.   We also 
make use of rdist''s extra capability to trigger scripts when and if
named
files are updated.
I''m not sure what the best method would be, of converting this to
puppet.

I havent found any puppet method that seems clearly designed for, 
"replicate this large tree of files out to clients".
The local tree is 260megs, in 5800 files.
Converting all that stuff to be package based, would be a chore.   It would 
also meet with a great deal of pushback from admins who are used to making 
changes by just logging on to the rdist master, changing the tree, and then 
being done.  Building a new package for every change, woud be very 
unpopular.

Even if I limited the puppet involvement, to just "if file /xx/yy changes, 
do z" triggers... doesnt that require that it has some master copy of 
/xx/yy somewhere to compare to?
Or is it that the local puppet demon takes timestamps the first time it 
runs? but then what about when the demon restarts?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/wLuOI6no0JEJ.
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 Philip,

I''ve never used rdist before, but I''ve just checked the man
page
quickly... How many servers have you got that''s you''ve got a
260 MiB and
5800 file repository? Is this a raw file count or are some of those 
files redundant (like ldap.conf going out to every single server and 
being counted 100+ times)?

-Luke

On 27/04/12 16:04, Philip Brown wrote:
> We have an existing "management system" of sorts, based on rdist.
I''d
> like to know the best way to migrate it to using puppet.
>
> Currently, we have a local binaries tree, rdisted out nightly.   We 
> also make use of rdist''s extra capability to trigger scripts when
and
> if named files are updated.
> I''m not sure what the best method would be, of converting this to
puppet.
>
> I havent found any puppet method that seems clearly designed for, 
> "replicate this large tree of files out to clients".
> The local tree is 260megs, in 5800 files.
> Converting all that stuff to be package based, would be a chore.   It 
> would also meet with a great deal of pushback from admins who are used 
> to making changes by just logging on to the rdist master, changing the 
> tree, and then being done.  Building a new package for every change, 
> woud be very unpopular.
>
> Even if I limited the puppet involvement, to just "if file /xx/yy 
> changes, do z" triggers... doesnt that require that it has some master
> copy of /xx/yy somewhere to compare to?
> Or is it that the local puppet demon takes timestamps the first time 
> it runs? but then what about when the demon restarts?
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Puppet Users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/wLuOI6no0JEJ.
> 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.

-- 
Luke Bigum

Information Systems
Ph: +44 (0) 20 3192 2520
luke.bigum@lmax.com | http://www.lmax.com
LMAX, Yellow Building, 1A Nicholas Road, London W11 4AN


FX and CFDs are leveraged products that can result in losses exceeding
your deposit.  They are not suitable for everyone so please ensure you
fully understand the risks involved.  The information in this email is not
directed at residents of the United States of America or any other
jurisdiction where trading in CFDs and/or FX is restricted or prohibited
by local laws or regulations.

The information in this email and any attachment is confidential and is
intended only for the named recipient(s). The email may not be disclosed
or used by any person other than the addressee, nor may it be copied in
any way. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender
immediately and delete any copies of this message. Any unauthorised
copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is
strictly forbidden.

LMAX operates a multilateral trading facility.  Authorised and regulated 
by the Financial Services Authority (firm registration number 509778) and
is registered in England and Wales (number 06505809). 
Our registered address is Yellow Building, 1A Nicholas Road, London, W11
4AN.

-- 
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 Friday, April 27, 2012 8:11:38 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum
wrote:
>
> Hi Philip, 
>
> I''ve never used rdist before, but I''ve just checked the
man page
> quickly... How many servers have you got that''s you''ve
got a 260 MiB and
> 5800 file repository? Is this a raw file count or are some of those 
> files redundant (like ldap.conf going out to every single server and 
> being counted 100+ times)? 
>
>
300+ servers.
5800 files go out,(or more specifically, get synced) identically, to all 
machines, every night.
Probably 200 of those are config files. the rest are specially compiled 
binaries and util scripts.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/JZsUZ6MP2yoJ.
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.

Ok... Not a small job ;-)

For config files where it''s exactly the same on all machines,
that''s
super easy. It''s just stored once on the Puppet Master and file is 
managed on all Puppet Agents.

I''m not sure if rdist has some templating system in it for machine 
specific config files, but Puppet has a Ruby based templating system 
that can handle lots of cases. Other more complex files can be done with 
what are called "Concat" files - one file is assembled from different 
fragments.

Scripts and especially compile binaries are tricky. Puppet''s not the 
best File Server. The more files you manage as actual Puppet Files the 
more work is involved. By default the Puppet Master MD5 sums files and 
the Agent does the same to work out whether a file needs to be copied 
down. There are some improvements you can make, like changing the 
checksum method, but 260MiB to every 200 servers? Sounds like a bad idea 
before you start.

What problem are you trying to solve that you think you need Puppet? The 
recommended Puppet way would be to package your binaries and use Puppet 
to enforce new versions of the package. You said your Admins are used to 
just getting on the rdist master, make changes and then practically an 
rsync? If that''s the way you work and the way you want to continue to 
work then I don''t think Puppet''s going to beat rdist for this
use case.

-Luke

On 27/04/12 16:15, Philip Brown wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 8:11:38 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum wrote:
>
> 300+ servers.
> 5800 files go out,(or more specifically, get synced) identically, to 
> all machines, every night.
> Probably 200 of those are config files. the rest are specially 
> compiled binaries and util scripts.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Puppet Users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/JZsUZ6MP2yoJ.
> 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.

-- 
Luke Bigum

Information Systems
Ph: +44 (0) 20 3192 2520
luke.bigum@lmax.com | http://www.lmax.com
LMAX, Yellow Building, 1A Nicholas Road, London W11 4AN


FX and CFDs are leveraged products that can result in losses exceeding
your deposit.  They are not suitable for everyone so please ensure you
fully understand the risks involved.  The information in this email is not
directed at residents of the United States of America or any other
jurisdiction where trading in CFDs and/or FX is restricted or prohibited
by local laws or regulations.

The information in this email and any attachment is confidential and is
intended only for the named recipient(s). The email may not be disclosed
or used by any person other than the addressee, nor may it be copied in
any way. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender
immediately and delete any copies of this message. Any unauthorised
copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is
strictly forbidden.

LMAX operates a multilateral trading facility.  Authorised and regulated 
by the Financial Services Authority (firm registration number 509778) and
is registered in England and Wales (number 06505809). 
Our registered address is Yellow Building, 1A Nicholas Road, London, W11
4AN.

-- 
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 Friday, April 27, 2012 8:28:32 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum
wrote:
>
> What problem are you trying to solve that you think you need Puppet? The 
> recommended Puppet way would be to package your binaries and use Puppet 
> to enforce new versions of the package. You said your Admins are used to 
> just getting on the rdist master, make changes and then practically an 
> rsync? If that''s the way you work and the way you want to continue
to
> work then I don''t think Puppet''s going to beat rdist for
this use case.
>
>
I was afraid of that. Well, even if we continue doing rdisted binary 
distribs, 
 the additional "run if changed" hooks, I think might be better served
by
puppet. yes?
 The current triggers are a bit quirky. And, we do many configs by symlinks 
on individual machines, to the "standard" configs in the rdisted
common
tree. I''d rather have that stuff handled by puppet configs.
There are "only" about 15 triggers, and 10-ish symlinks per machine.
For symlinks, I mean stuff like

 /etc/resolv.conf ->  /shared/path/resolv/resolv.conf-machinetype

I''d rather puppet do actual COPIES of files. That works better with
solaris
patches. So I''m thinking some kind of 
puppet class, that autocopies
  /shared/path/resolv/resolv.conf-machinetype    to /etc/resolv.conf
whenever the /shared/path version gets changed by rdist.
Is that going to work reliably?


Triggers do things like, "if config file target has changed, restart 
demon". So, perfect puppetness there.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/s3m4tvQXRpMJ.
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.

Yes, Puppet is perfect for your file-copy-and-hook scenario. In Puppet
speak it''s "notify" and "subscribe" between
resources, here''s a very
quick example that will restart Some Daemon if /etc/resolv.conf
changes:

node ''somehost'' {
  class { ''resolv'': }
}

class resolv {
  $resolv_conf  = ''/etc/resolv.conf''
  $service_name = ''some-daemon''

  file { $resolv_conf:
    source => "puppet:///modules/${module_name}/${resolv_conf}",
    notify => Service[$service_name],
  }

  service { $service_name:
    hasrestart => true,
    ensure     => running,
    enable     => true,
    require    => File[$resolv_conf],
  }
}

The module design of Puppet pushes you in the direction of keeping
your Puppet controlled config files inside the module that controls
them, but it *is* possible to reference other paths on the file system
(like your existing rdist tree) if you want, but I wouldn''t mix the
two to save confusion.

Generally you''d put your master resolv.conf file on your Puppet Master
somewhere like: /etc/puppet/modules/resolv/files/etc/resolv.conf

I would start with converting all your config files over first. Once
you realise how easy it is to write modules you might be able to
convince some of your admins to start packaging your code, then you
can introduce package hooks to restart services or run scripts when
software updates and maybe by then you''ll have everyone hooked ;-)

The Puppet Package type supports a lot of different providers and OS'':

http://docs.puppetlabs.com/references/2.7.0/type.html#package


On Apr 27, 5:40 pm, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 8:28:32 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum wrote:
>
> > What problem are you trying to solve that you think you need Puppet?
The
> > recommended Puppet way would be to package your binaries and use
Puppet
> > to enforce new versions of the package. You said your Admins are used
to
> > just getting on the rdist master, make changes and then practically an
> > rsync? If that''s the way you work and the way you want to
continue to
> > work then I don''t think Puppet''s going to beat rdist
for this use case.
>
> I was afraid of that. Well, even if we continue doing rdisted binary
> distribs,
>  the additional "run if changed" hooks, I think might be better
served by
> puppet. yes?
>  The current triggers are a bit quirky. And, we do many configs by symlinks
> on individual machines, to the "standard" configs in the rdisted
common
> tree. I''d rather have that stuff handled by puppet configs.
> There are "only" about 15 triggers, and 10-ish symlinks per
machine.
> For symlinks, I mean stuff like
>
>  /etc/resolv.conf ->  /shared/path/resolv/resolv.conf-machinetype
>
> I''d rather puppet do actual COPIES of files. That works better
with solaris
> patches. So I''m thinking some kind of
> puppet class, that autocopies
>   /shared/path/resolv/resolv.conf-machinetype    to /etc/resolv.conf
> whenever the /shared/path version gets changed by rdist.
> Is that going to work reliably?
>
> Triggers do things like, "if config file target has changed, restart
> demon". So, perfect puppetness there.
-- 
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 Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:11:23 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum
wrote:
>
> Yes, Puppet is perfect for your file-copy-and-hook scenario. In Puppet 
> speak it''s "notify" and "subscribe" between
resources, here''s a very
> quick example that will restart Some Daemon if /etc/resolv.conf 
> changes: 
>
> node ''somehost'' { 
>   class { ''resolv'': } 
> } 
>
> class resolv { 
>   $resolv_conf  = ''/etc/resolv.conf'' 
>   $service_name = ''some-daemon'' 
>
>   file { $resolv_conf: 
>     source =>
"puppet:///modules/${module_name}/${resolv_conf}",
>     notify => Service[$service_name], 
>   } 
>
....


But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base instead? 
What does that look like?
>Once 
>you realise how easy it is to write modules you might be able to 
> convince some of your admins to start packaging your code,
Sadly, the chances of getting all sysadmins to be dilligent about creating 
packages are pretty much zero. 
They only want to deal with premade downloadable packages.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/2xg3WgKnZN8J.
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 Apr 28, 9:53 am, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:11:23 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum wrote:
>
> > Yes, Puppet is perfect for your file-copy-and-hook scenario. In Puppet
> > speak it''s "notify" and "subscribe"
between resources, here''s a very
> > quick example that will restart Some Daemon if /etc/resolv.conf
> > changes:
>
> > node ''somehost'' {
> >   class { ''resolv'': }
> > }
>
> > class resolv {
> >   $resolv_conf  = ''/etc/resolv.conf''
> >   $service_name = ''some-daemon''
>
> >   file { $resolv_conf:
> >     source =>
"puppet:///modules/${module_name}/${resolv_conf}",
> >     notify => Service[$service_name],
> >   }
>
> ....
>
> But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
> What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base instead?
> What does that look like?
>
> >Once
> >you realise how easy it is to write modules you might be able to
> > convince some of your admins to start packaging your code,
>
> Sadly, the chances of getting all sysadmins to be dilligent about creating
> packages are pretty much zero.
> They only want to deal with premade downloadable packages.

It sounds like you might be able to split this into two parts.  Surely
there aren''t many of those 5800 files that your sysadmins routinely
change (else they''re acting as developers, not admins).  Build a
package or packages of the binaries, containing also whatever default
configuration files are appropriate.  In the package, be sure to tag
the config files as such.  Manage the packages as Packages, and on top
of that manage the config files as Files.

Using such a strategy, if you give your admins access to the Puppet
master''s copies of the config files then they could work much as they
do now: change the file on the Puppet master, and expect it to be
rolled out to all the appropriate nodes within a predictable time.
Unchanged files will not trigger updates on the nodes.  Updates to the
binaries will require new packages to be built, but that oughtn''t to
be your admins'' duty.

And if your admins do not appreciate the advantages of avoiding
installing unpackaged binaries then you need better admins.


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 Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:52 AM, jcbollinger <John.Bollinger@stjude.org>
wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 28, 9:53 am, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, the chances of getting all sysadmins to be dilligent about
creating
>> packages are pretty much zero.
>> They only want to deal with premade downloadable packages.
>
>
> It sounds like you might be able to split this into two parts.  Surely
> there aren''t many of those 5800 files that your sysadmins
routinely
> change (else they''re acting as developers, not admins).  Build a
> package or packages of the binaries, containing also whatever default
> configuration files are appropriate.

I''ve already said that converting modified files to packages, was not
an option.
> And if your admins do not appreciate the advantages of avoiding
> installing unpackaged binaries then you need better admins.
whether or not that is true, unfortunately does not bring me closer to
a usable techical solution :(

-- 
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 Apr 30, 10:52 am, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> I''ve already said that converting modified files to packages, was
not an option.
No, you said that getting your admins'' to deploy config changes by
packaging them up was not an option.  My suggestion avoids imposing
any need for them to do that.

It may be that you also don''t want to package up the rest, but
that''s
a different story altogether.  You can surely automate that process if
you wish to do so -- nightly, say, on the same schedule that you now
rdist -- and there are advantages to that beyond integrating Puppet
into your infrastructure.

In any case, the degree to which Puppet can help you is modulated by
the degree to which you are willing to adopt techniques that work well
with Puppet.


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 Apr 28, 9:53 am, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:11:23 AM UTC-7, Luke Bigum wrote:
>
> > Yes, Puppet is perfect for your file-copy-and-hook scenario. In Puppet
> > speak it''s "notify" and "subscribe"
between resources, here''s a very
> > quick example that will restart Some Daemon if /etc/resolv.conf
> > changes:
>
> > node ''somehost'' {
> >   class { ''resolv'': }
> > }
>
> > class resolv {
> >   $resolv_conf  = ''/etc/resolv.conf''
> >   $service_name = ''some-daemon''
>
> >   file { $resolv_conf:
> >     source =>
"puppet:///modules/${module_name}/${resolv_conf}",
> >     notify => Service[$service_name],
> >   }
>
> ....
>
> But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
> What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base instead?
> What does that look like?
It looks exactly like what you are now doing (i.e. no Puppet).  How do
you suppose Puppet is going to recognize that it needs to notify a
service if it''s not managing the file?  Really, think about it: how
might Puppet know a file changed if it''s not the one changing it?
Could all that extra work really be an improvement over rdist
triggers?  (Hint: not likely.)

I think it would be useful to you to consider what you hope to achieve
by incorporating Puppet into your infrastructure.  Your rdist system
must be working fairly well because you seem resistant to changing
it.  What, then, do you think Puppet can bring to the table?


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.

I can''t say that my puppet installation is even close to best
practices, but I think I have a situation similar enough to OP to put
it up for scrutiny.  I deploy 7600 files to /var/www/html using puppet
and rsync.  Puppet manages an rssh + chroot-jailed read-only file
share and provides the web head with an ssh key to access it.

This has the advantage of working around puppet''s heavy weight file
handling, but still giving you the opportunity to attach to the
subscribe/notify infrastructure.

$rsync = "/usr/bin/rsync -a rsync@puppet:html/ /var/www/html --delete"
	
exec { "Sync /var/www/html":
  command => $rsync,
  notify  => Service["httpd"],
  onlyif  => "test `$rsync --dry-run --itemize-changes | wc -l` -gt
0",
  require => Host["puppet"],
}

-- 
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, May 1, 2012 at 6:58 AM, jcbollinger <John.Bollinger@stjude.org>
wrote:
>
>> But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
>> What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base instead?
>> What does that look like?
>
> It looks exactly like what you are now doing (i.e. no Puppet).  How do
> you suppose Puppet is going to recognize that it needs to notify a
> service if it''s not managing the file?

That was indeed a major part of the question I have.
I thought it keeps some kind of database of file checksums, etc?
Doesnt puppet support some kind of
(action if file changed), even if it doesnt "manage the file" itself?

 >
> I think it would be useful to you to consider what you hope to achieve
> by incorporating Puppet into your infrastructure.  Your rdist system
> must be working fairly well because you seem resistant to changing
> it.  What, then, do you think Puppet can bring to the table?
A fair question. I thought I had mentioned it, but perhaps not
sufficiently clearly:
I want to change our existing hosttype:/etc/file.conf ->
/rdistbase/conf/file.conf.hosttype symlink methodology, to be more
like

node hosttype {
  keep /rdistbase/conf/file.conf.host synced to /etc/file.conf
}


Our existing methodology works well 95% of the time. There are reasons
to keep it in place as is. But I want 100% coverage. symlinks break
patches, and a few other things.. The only way to extend things in
that direction that I can see, is have puppet manage the duplication
on a per-host basis.

Yes, I understand the "normal puppet way" of doing things, is to have
those conf files inside the puppet tree, but it is more maintainable
*for us*, to have all multi-host related stuff, in the single rdist
directory tree.

-- 
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, May 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Philip Brown <phil@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:58 AM, jcbollinger
<John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote:
>>
>>> But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
>>> What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base
instead?
>>> What does that look like?
>>
>> It looks exactly like what you are now doing (i.e. no Puppet).  How do
>> you suppose Puppet is going to recognize that it needs to notify a
>> service if it''s not managing the file?
>
>
> That was indeed a major part of the question I have.
> I thought it keeps some kind of database of file checksums, etc?
> Doesnt puppet support some kind of
> (action if file changed), even if it doesnt "manage the file"
itself?
>
>  >
>> I think it would be useful to you to consider what you hope to achieve
>> by incorporating Puppet into your infrastructure.  Your rdist system
>> must be working fairly well because you seem resistant to changing
>> it.  What, then, do you think Puppet can bring to the table?
>
> A fair question. I thought I had mentioned it, but perhaps not
> sufficiently clearly:
> I want to change our existing hosttype:/etc/file.conf ->
> /rdistbase/conf/file.conf.hosttype symlink methodology, to be more
> like
>
> node hosttype {
>  keep /rdistbase/conf/file.conf.host synced to /etc/file.conf
> }
>
>
> Our existing methodology works well 95% of the time. There are reasons
> to keep it in place as is. But I want 100% coverage. symlinks break
> patches, and a few other things.. The only way to extend things in
> that direction that I can see, is have puppet manage the duplication
> on a per-host basis.
>
> Yes, I understand the "normal puppet way" of doing things, is to
have
> those conf files inside the puppet tree, but it is more maintainable
> *for us*, to have all multi-host related stuff, in the single rdist
> directory tree.
You can use rdist to retrieve the file as usual and in the file path
source use the local rdist directory instead of puppet:/// so there''s
no remote file retrieval from the puppet master.

file { ''/etc/file.conf'':
   source => "/rdistbase/conf/file.conf.${::hostname}",
}

Just trigger the puppet run after your normal rdist file push.

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.

On May 1, 11:24 am, Philip Brown <p...@bolthole.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:58 AM, jcbollinger
<John.Bollin...@stjude.org> wrote:
>
> >> But that requires the files be hosted on the puppet master.
> >> What if the conf files are still rdisted out under /rdist/base
instead?
> >> What does that look like?
>
> > It looks exactly like what you are now doing (i.e. no Puppet).  How do
> > you suppose Puppet is going to recognize that it needs to notify a
> > service if it''s not managing the file?
>
> That was indeed a major part of the question I have.
> I thought it keeps some kind of database of file checksums, etc?

It checksums managed files on the client and the corresponding source
files on the master to determine whether they match.  Possibly it
caches the master-side checksums (MD5 hashes by default), which would
amount to pretty much what you seem to be thinking.

> Doesnt puppet support some kind of
> (action if file changed), even if it doesnt "manage the file"
itself?

There is an important concept that you need to understand to use
Puppet effectively, or even to accurately analyze how it might work
for you: Puppet is all about *state*.  Actions that Puppet performs
are thoroughly a secondary consideration.  A great many people seem to
miss this concept or have trouble with it.  They tend to view Puppet
as some kind of fancy script engine, and that leads to all sorts of
misconceptions, wrong expectations, and manifest design problems.

It is more correct and more useful to view Puppet as a state
management service.  One describes desired aspects of his nodes''
states to Puppet, and Puppet figures out how to make it so and keep it
so.  Puppet does have ancillary features such as ''subscribe''
and
''notify'' that have a functional flavor, but even these are
expressed
in terms of managed resources, and best interpreted in terms of
state.  For example, a Service may ''subscribe'' to the File
managing
its configuration to express the idea that the running instance of the
service should be using the latest configuration (a matter of the
service instance''s state).

In short, therefore, no, Puppet does not provide for triggering
actions based on changes to files or resources it does not manage.
Even if it did, in your case you would be looking at duplicating work
that rdist already does to determine whether to copy the file, and you
would have issues with synchronizing Puppet and rdist actions.

> > I think it would be useful to you to consider what you hope to achieve
> > by incorporating Puppet into your infrastructure.  Your rdist system
> > must be working fairly well because you seem resistant to changing
> > it.  What, then, do you think Puppet can bring to the table?
>
> A fair question. I thought I had mentioned it, but perhaps not
> sufficiently clearly:
> I want to change our existing hosttype:/etc/file.conf ->
> /rdistbase/conf/file.conf.hosttype symlink methodology, to be more
> like
>
> node hosttype {
>   keep /rdistbase/conf/file.conf.host synced to /etc/file.conf
>
> }
>
> Our existing methodology works well 95% of the time. There are reasons
> to keep it in place as is. But I want 100% coverage. symlinks break
> patches, and a few other things.. The only way to extend things in
> that direction that I can see, is have puppet manage the duplication
> on a per-host basis.

Note that Puppet can keep a local file in sync with a copy *on the
master*, but it does not naturally support keeping files in sync with
other files on the node.  You could hash something up with an Exec or
Cron job that uses a local rsync to perform such a task, but that''s a
bit messy.  It also doesn''t solve the problem of synchronizing Puppet
and rdist: what happens when Puppet (or whatever other service)
happens to try to sync a file at the same time that rdist is updating
it?

> Yes, I understand the "normal puppet way" of doing things, is to
have
> those conf files inside the puppet tree, but it is more maintainable
> *for us*, to have all multi-host related stuff, in the single rdist
> directory tree.

You could have it both ways by symlinking directories or individual
files from your rdist tree into the Puppet tree on the master.  Puppet
should be ok with that.

Alternatively, it may be that Puppet just isn''t going to do what you
hope without more changes to your existing system than you''re willing
to accept.


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 Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:51 AM, jcbollinger <John.Bollinger@stjude.org>
wrote:
>> Yes, I understand the "normal puppet way" of doing things, is
to have
>> those conf files inside the puppet tree, but it is more maintainable
>> *for us*, to have all multi-host related stuff, in the single rdist
>> directory tree.
>
>
> You could have it both ways by symlinking directories or individual
> files from your rdist tree into the Puppet tree on the master.  Puppet
> should be ok with that.
>
> Alternatively, it may be that Puppet just isn''t going to do what
you
> hope without more changes to your existing system than you''re
willing
> to accept.

It seems to work just great via the trigger solution that someone else
already suggested.
As I said previously, the big problem Im trying to *solve*, is use of symlinks.
After a little testing, it seems that puppet nicely solves this for us

-- 
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.