On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Simon J Mudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Evan Hisey") writes:
> > Depending on your puppet version, yes. It is a known issue/annoyance
> > that puppet is lousy at transferring large directories of files.
>
> Lousy? Really awful. Makes it unworkable especially if you have a lot
> of servers to copy to. We've had to adjust the install script and pull
> from an http server first and then run the install script but that's
> a pain. cfengine is _MUCH_ better at this.
>
> > I under stand that a change to a ReST desgin for the file transfer
> > is coming that should resolve this.
>
> Well I wait for that change as the current design is just unworkable
> for large files. And 40MB is not really that large.
Eh, is puppet a replacement for ftp/http/rsync or is it configuration
management? The fact you can easily ship around small files is key, but
large packages are IMHO better suited for more traditional transfer
protocols. The authors of apt/yum/portage didn't try to build a new way of
pushing files around and I think its a mistake for puppet to really aim at
replacing already existing file transfer protocols. It would be cool if
puppet supported more URIs though.
.r'
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
