On 23 February 2010 03:49, tobyriddell <toby.ridd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Comparing CPU utilisation is like benchmarking cars by seeing how well >> they float. > > Without wanting to appear flippant, perhaps I want a floating car :)
Then perhaps you should be looking for a boat? Puppet's performance and scaling problems aren't that unique. It's pretty much the same thing that happened with Rails - people started using and deploying it without considering the performance implications, and were surprised when it didn't scale. Rails *does* scale, just not out of the box. I'd wager that, to a certain extent, Puppet is in the same boat. Performance, expressiveness, stability. Pick two. > > In my case I need a tool that *if* run during production hours will > consume very little CPU - we've got very stringent requirements for > application jitter. It's likely we'll end up running Puppet (or > whatever) only outside production hours. > > (We may end up setting up dedicated processor sets for the > applications, leaving a pool for other processes, including Puppet - > clearly configuring processor sets is something that Puppet can help > with!) > > Toby > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > -- w: http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ t: @auxesis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
