Puppet users - Jan 2013 - two mounts with the same name (one present, one absent)

What''s the best practice to define two mount resources with same name,
but
different fstypes or ensure parameter ? In my particular case, I have the 
following :

Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different 
fstype. One is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet doesn''t like
it,
Looking at a bug report earlier 
( http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ), I followed the suggestion, 
but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this error :

Error: Could not retrieve catalog from remote server: Error 400 on SERVER: 
Puppet::Parser::AST::Resource failed with error ArgumentError: Cannot alias 
Mount[umnt_sdisk_3] to ["/data/01"] at 
/etc/puppet/modules/mname/manifests/datavers.pp:190; resource
["Mount",
"/data/01"] already declared at 
/etc/puppet/modules/mname/manifests/datavers.pp:162 at 
/etc/puppet/modules/mname/manifests/datavers.pp:190 on node node_name


  @mount {
      "mnt_sdisk_3" :
        device => "/dev/sdb1",
        name => "/data/01",
        fstype => "auto",
        options => "defaults",
        dump => "0",
        pass => "0",
        ensure => present;
   }
 @mount {
      "umnt_sdisk_3" :
        device => "/dev/sdb1",
        name => "/data/01",
        fstype => "ext3",
        options => "defaults",
        dump => "0",
        pass => "0",
        ensure => absent;
    }

-- 
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/-/GT3RbAlL1nIJ.
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 about declaring a single resource and change the value of the ensure
parameter as necessary ?


“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes) 

-- 
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, January 18, 2013 12:11:42 PM UTC-6, iamauser
wrote:
>
> What''s the best practice to define two mount resources with same
name, but
> different fstypes or ensure parameter ? In my particular case, I have the 
> following :
>
> Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different 
> fstype. One is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet doesn''t
like it,
> Looking at a bug report earlier ( 
> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ), I followed the suggestion, 
> but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this error :
>

You cannot declare multiple configurations of the same resource for the 
same target node.  This constraint covers all resource declarations 
equally, including those of virtual and exported resources.  Where it knows 
how to do so, Puppet intentionally recognizes and blocks attempts to 
disguise multiple declarations by use of different resource titles 
(contrary to some of the comments on issue 7491, but imho correctly).

Instead, declare the resource once, and either set its parameters 
conditionally or override them, where needed, by one of the supported 
mechanisms for doing so.


John

-- 
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/-/kDHM2JVxoIsJ.
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.

> Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different 
>> fstype. One is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet
doesn''t like it,
>> Looking at a bug report earlier ( 
>> http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ), I followed the
suggestion,
>> but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this error :
>>
>
>
> You cannot declare multiple configurations of the same resource for the 
> same target node.  This constraint covers all resource declarations 
> equally, including those of virtual and exported resources.  Where it knows
> how to do so, Puppet intentionally recognizes and blocks attempts to 
> disguise multiple declarations by use of different resource titles 
> (contrary to some of the comments on issue 7491, but imho correctly).
>
>  
I agree with your opinion here because the comments on issue 7941
doesn''t
work. My case is a bit strange though. As you could see, I want to make the 
same mount "absent" only if the fstype is different from what was
defined
originally for "present". And both these operation should happen in
the
same node.

I had tried declaring a single virtual resource and then change the fstype 
and ensure parameter. It doesn''t work as I want. It removes the mount
point
"/data/01" that was initially present and simply ignores the change in
the
fstype. See e.g.,

class cl::mount {
 @mount {
      "mnt_sdisk_3" :
        device => "/dev/sdb1",
        name => "/data/01",
        fstype => "auto",
        options => "defaults",
        dump => "0",
        pass => "0",
        ensure => present;
   }
}

class cl::test_mount inherits cl::mount {
    realize(Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"])
    Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"] {
      fstype => "ext3",
      ensure => absent,
    }
}

Notice: /Stage[main]/Cl::Mount/Mount[mnt_sdisk_3]/ensure: current_value 
mounted, should be absent (noop)


Note that I am testing this on a machine where the change shouldn''t
happen
because there is no "ext3" fstype with name "/data/01" in
/etc/fstab.

I guess this is a very special case and probably I have to deal with this 
by editing fstab using Exec.


Cheers
>
>
-- 
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/-/qnFIsP5uO4AJ.
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.

Let''s try re-stating the original problem: 

Manage one mount point 
File type can be one of multiple types 
May or may not actually be mounted. 

Instead of a virtual resource, how about a define or parametrized class that
takes fstype and mount/don''t-mount as input parameters ?


“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes) 

----- Original Message -----
From: "iamauser" <tapas.sarangi@gmail.com> 
To: puppet-users@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:00:22 PM 
Subject: [Puppet Users] Re: two mounts with the same name (one present, one
absent)





<blockquote>
Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different fstype. One
is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet doesn''t like it,
Looking at a bug report earlier ( http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ),
I followed the suggestion, but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this
error :




You cannot declare multiple configurations of the same resource for the same
target node. This constraint covers all resource declarations equally, including
those of virtual and exported resources. Where it knows how to do so, Puppet
intentionally recognizes and blocks attempts to disguise multiple declarations
by use of different resource titles (contrary to some of the comments on issue
7491, but imho correctly).


</blockquote>


I agree with your opinion here because the comments on issue 7941
doesn''t work. My case is a bit strange though. As you could see, I want
to make the same mount "absent" only if the fstype is different from
what was defined originally for "present". And both these operation
should happen in the same node.


I had tried declaring a single virtual resource and then change the fstype and
ensure parameter. It doesn''t work as I want. It removes the mount point
"/data/01" that was initially present and simply ignores the change in
the fstype. See e.g.,


class cl::mount { 


@mount { 
"mnt_sdisk_3" : 
device => "/dev/sdb1", 
name => "/data/01", 
fstype => "auto", 
options => "defaults", 
dump => "0", 
pass => "0", 
ensure => present; 
} 

} 


class cl::test_mount inherits cl::mount { 
realize(Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"]) 
Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"] { 
fstype => "ext3", 
ensure => absent, 
} 
} 


Notice: /Stage[main]/Cl::Mount/Mount[mnt_sdisk_3]/ensure: current_value mounted,
should be absent (noop)





Note that I am testing this on a machine where the change shouldn''t
happen because there is no "ext3" fstype with name
"/data/01" in /etc/fstab.


I guess this is a very special case and probably I have to deal with this by
editing fstab using Exec.





Cheers 
<blockquote>



</blockquote>


-- 
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/-/qnFIsP5uO4AJ .
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.

Found a clue: 

http://docs.puppetlabs.com/references/latest/type.html#mount 

ensure Control what to do with this mount. Set this attribute to umounted to
make sure the filesystem is in the filesystem table but not mounted (if the
filesystem is currently mounted, it will be unmounted). Set it to absent to
unmount (if necessary) and remove the filesystem from the fstab. Set to mounted
to add it to the fstab and mount it. Set to present to add to fstab but not
change mount/unmount status. Valid values are defined (also called present ),
unmounted , absent , mounted .
So maybe you want to use mounted/unmounted rather than present/absent ! 


“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the
universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”
Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes) 

----- Original Message -----
From: "iamauser" <tapas.sarangi@gmail.com> 
To: puppet-users@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:00:22 PM 
Subject: [Puppet Users] Re: two mounts with the same name (one present, one
absent)





<blockquote>
Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different fstype. One
is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet doesn''t like it,
Looking at a bug report earlier ( http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ),
I followed the suggestion, but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this
error :




You cannot declare multiple configurations of the same resource for the same
target node. This constraint covers all resource declarations equally, including
those of virtual and exported resources. Where it knows how to do so, Puppet
intentionally recognizes and blocks attempts to disguise multiple declarations
by use of different resource titles (contrary to some of the comments on issue
7491, but imho correctly).


</blockquote>


I agree with your opinion here because the comments on issue 7941
doesn''t work. My case is a bit strange though. As you could see, I want
to make the same mount "absent" only if the fstype is different from
what was defined originally for "present". And both these operation
should happen in the same node.


I had tried declaring a single virtual resource and then change the fstype and
ensure parameter. It doesn''t work as I want. It removes the mount point
"/data/01" that was initially present and simply ignores the change in
the fstype. See e.g.,


class cl::mount { 


@mount { 
"mnt_sdisk_3" : 
device => "/dev/sdb1", 
name => "/data/01", 
fstype => "auto", 
options => "defaults", 
dump => "0", 
pass => "0", 
ensure => present; 
} 

} 


class cl::test_mount inherits cl::mount { 
realize(Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"]) 
Mount["mnt_sdisk_3"] { 
fstype => "ext3", 
ensure => absent, 
} 
} 


Notice: /Stage[main]/Cl::Mount/Mount[mnt_sdisk_3]/ensure: current_value mounted,
should be absent (noop)





Note that I am testing this on a machine where the change shouldn''t
happen because there is no "ext3" fstype with name
"/data/01" in /etc/fstab.


I guess this is a very special case and probably I have to deal with this by
editing fstab using Exec.





Cheers 
<blockquote>



</blockquote>


-- 
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/-/qnFIsP5uO4AJ .
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.

On Jan 18, 2013 11:31 AM, "jcbollinger"
<John.Bollinger@stjude.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 12:11:42 PM UTC-6, iamauser wrote:
>>
>> What''s the best practice to define two mount resources with
same name,
but different fstypes or ensure parameter ? In my particular case, I have
the following :
>>
>> Two mounts defined as virtual resources with same name but different
fstype. One is is ensuring present, other absent. Puppet doesn''t like
it,
>> Looking at a bug report earlier (
http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7491 ), I followed the suggestion,
but it doesn''t help. puppet throws this error :
>
> Instead, declare the resource once, and either set its parameters
conditionally or override them, where needed, by one of the supported
mechanisms for doing so.
>
>
> John
If I understand correctly the conditional would be based on the current
fstype of the mount.  It seems like a custom fact would be needed.

-- 
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.