Seconded. For debugging purposes, the webrick master is still useful as well.
On 03/06/2015 06:04 PM, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > I was going back and forth on this and I have to agree with John. > > There have been several times where I pushed out a lightweight Puppet > server on a VM running 512M RAM, 1 CPU, just to try something in a > 'production-like' scenario. > > I'm OK with losing Rack support, but a lightweight server instance is > great for testing. > > Trevor > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:01 PM, John Bollinger > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 10:30:47 PM UTC-6, Eric Sorenson wrote: > > My hypothesis is if you're just dipping a toe in the water to > try out Puppet, running standalone with `puppet apply` is > probably going to work better than a webrick agent/server setup. > > > > I'm doubtful of the validity of that hypothesis. The use cases for > `puppet apply` tend to be different from the use cases for agent / > master. If I wanted to try out Puppet for a scenario in which agent > / master was the appropriate choice, or especially if the agent / > master setup itself were part of what I wanted to evaluate, then > `puppet apply` would simply not be a good alternative. > > As light-duty as webrick may be, it has the virtue of being > extremely easy get up and running. I'm not specially tied to > webrick itself, but I think Puppet benefits from having a > lightweight, out-of-the-box server option. > > > John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/54F9DFE0.7010503%40alumni.tu-berlin.de. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
