[EMAIL PROTECTED] (RijilV) writes:
> 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.
I think you miss the point. Puppet DOES provide facilities for
securely copying files from a server to a number of clients using part
of the current client-server communication that it uses for other
tasks. cfengine does the same thing. That's great.
When you start working with a large number of servers over a large
number of networks perhaps geographically located in different
locations the NETWORK may not be as open as you have on a simple
single vlan. That's because there are extra layers of security in
place which can be a nuisance.
The network department thus LIKE the fact that puppet provides a
single protocal for communication between client and server. If puppet
provides that facility then it should work. I have not seen anywhere
in the puppet documentation:
"DO NOT USE THE file: type with files over XXXX MB"
or
"THIS IS VERY SLOW WITH FILES OVER XXXX MB"
Therefore I expect it to work.
cfengine does EXACTLY the same thing but you can also copy over files
which are large. So why can't puppet?
When you talk about configuration management then I think of this as
"server configuration management" and if part of that is to copy a
file over, and custom run an installer to get the software installed,
followed by other tasks to get it running then that for me is
configuration management. The simpler tasks of installing rpms and
adjusting their configuration files solves most problems but not all
of them, and the added flexibility to be able to easily build your own
extras as site specific requirements demand is a must.
In the end I've had to adjust my install script to copy the binary by
http, and then get the site-specific custom installer to download the
binary by http and run it appropriately. That splits the 2 files into
separate locations which have to be "managed" separately, and is
therefore more work, so I've made a workaround, but that's only because
current behaviour is not usable as advertised.
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
