similar to: Using Puppet to manage NFS mounts, or autofs?

I have some NFS directories that get changed to a read-only status after a period of time. I noticed in puppet, if I change these values and restart puppet and puppetmaster respectively, it does not pick up the change in the mount {} directive. Is there a way around this, or a better way to affect the change. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:36:03 AM CEST Warren Young wrote: > On May 18, 2020, at 5:13 AM, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > Is there a better alternative for mounting remote file systems over > > unreliable connections? > > I don?t have a good answer for you, because if you?d asked me without all > this backstory whether NFS or SSHFS is more tolerant of bad

Hi, after trying sshfs to mount a remote file system on a server with the result that sshfs will sooner or later get stuck and require a reboot of the client, I'm fed up with it and am looking for alternatives. So next I would like to use NFS over a VPN connection instead. To minimize the instances of the NFS mount getting stuck, it might be helpful to use autofs. What happens when the

Hello, i have run an update on a machine with CentOS release 7.4.1708 and autofs 1:5.0.7-70.el7_4.1 to CentOS release 7.6.1810 and autofs 1:5.0.7-99.el7 The configuration did not change, all auto.* maps look the same as before. After the update, the autofs seems to be broken for the direct mounts. When reaching the umount timeout it does the opposite and mounts all direct mounts and never

Hi group, I am managing an NFS mount with puppet. And it does not work, and seriously I really don''t see how this can work out nicely. First I make sure with a file {} class that the directory I want to mount exists. Cause it is used by the webserver it should belong to the wwwrun/www group on the system. No prob. Then I mount the NFS share on the dir. No prob. On the 2nd run of

On May 18, 2020, at 5:13 AM, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > Is there a better alternative for mounting remote file systems over unreliable > connections? I don?t have a good answer for you, because if you?d asked me without all this backstory whether NFS or SSHFS is more tolerant of bad connections, I?d have told you SSHFS. NFS comes out of the "Unix lab? world, where all

> That's what I thought. Should I make a bug report? Sshfs is clearly intended > to reconnect automatically when mounted like that, and it doesn't do that. Not so clearly. Look at the sshfs reconnect option, and also ssh/ssfs ServerAliveInterval/ServerAliveCountMax.

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 05:36:03PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On May 18, 2020, at 5:13 AM, hw <hw at gc-24.de> wrote: > > > > Is there a better alternative for mounting remote file systems > > over unreliable > > connections? > > I don?t have a good answer for you, because if you?d asked me > without all this backstory whether NFS or SSHFS is more

I''m attempting to deploy puppet via an NFS share. It''s on a local-only network, and it will contain only ruby (gems) and whatever is needed. Seems simple enough, but tonight I am having an issue with this error: # service puppet start Starting puppet: /local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/ custom_require.rb:36:in `gem_original_require'': no such file to load -- openssl

Our shop is newly adopting puppet. Our number of nodes is growing and my installation method is thus far manual and tedious. This will change when/if we migrate to Puppet Enterprise. My question is what''s a best practice for managing puppet installations on client nodes? Is it possible to separate out the client portion of the install from the server or is that now fully

About week ago, we moved our production puppet server to an older IBM OpenPower Server with 8 cores and 8GB ram. We use Ubuntu 8.04 LTS for the PowerPC (the most recent version for this hardware). We have puppet 0.24.8, Apache+ssl, Passenger 2.2.2 and Rack 1.0. We manage 780 identically configured compute nodes and gateways with a mix of ppc and x86 cpu''s running either CentOS 5.3, or

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

I read somewhere recently about problems with Puppet and Ruby 1.9. I''m wondering if this is still an issue? Thanks. -- 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

Hi. I have a trouble that disabling automountd on Solaris10. So could you tell me what I should do to fix this trouble. [Environment] Puppetmasterd -version : 0.25.3 -OS : Solaris10 10/09 Puppetd -version : same as Puppetmasterd -OS : same as Puppetmasterd [What I did & trouble detail] 1.Edit manifest file. service { ''autofs'': ensure =>

I am using autofs for a number of machines connecting nfs shares. All the mount and unmount log entries on the server are being saved to /var/log/messages currently. This is becoming a bit of a pain because as the number of hosts increase and various monitoring scripts check to be sure that they have access to the nfs shares it is filling up messages on the nfs server. I would like to continue

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:59:23PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 08/23/2017 01:06 PM, Fred Smith wrote: > >so, the two lines saying: Key "syno-fredex" or key "syno-public" > >appear whenever I try to access one of those two filesystems. I AM NOT > >USING AUTOFS TO MANAGE THEM. > > > You're using autofs to manage /mnt, so any time that

Short version: How do you (the multitudes) handle puppetized networking with nfs volumes? Details: I''m tweaking work''s puppetized networking for debian/ubuntu hosts. As part of this, I''d like better handling of networking changes when I have nfs mounts present on the server. Right now on all hosts (debian, ubuntu, centos) with puppetized networking will kill their

Dear All My box is an Ubuntu Maverick I want to have 1. User with username as : binosmb, 2. that have home directory at the local box at /home/binosmb, 3. and all cifs mountpoint will go at /home/binosmb/network, 4. So that if the server have share named "produksi" it will mounted to /home/binosmb/network/produksi and my samba server is http://www.turnkeylinux.org/fileserver run on

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 08:53:17PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 08/23/2017 02:31 PM, Fred Smith wrote: > >do I need to reboot or something to get autofs to forget about them > >being in /mnt? > > > No, you need to figure out what program, not autofs, is trying to > access /mnt/syno-fredex and /mnt/syno-public. > > You moved the mounts, but some program

Hi, I have a autofs configured to mount home dir from NFS. All user accounts lookup is done using LDAP. All is working fine with this setup. Now I need to create a local user account and have its home dir also on local system. So I added a new user account and changed auto.home as follows: test1 -rw,hard,intr /home/test1 * -rw,hard,intr nfs1:/export/users/& But this