If Puppet were to manage /home/something, an NFS mount, and ensure it's
mounted... it would automatically look to see if both /home and / were also
mounted?
In most cases, on our older systems, /home is actually just on / -- a full
partition that sits on a raid5 layer. So, at best, Puppet would just get
a standard error that / and /home are already present and mounted.
What I'm concerned about is:
- Ensuring the directories are present, with correct permissions and
ownership
- Ensuring that the NFS mount is active and available (possibly send out
an error vis syslog if not)
- NOT causing some bizarre cascade of mount issues by Puppet repeatedly
attempting to fix something it cannot, in the case of an error that
requires manual intervention.
Our environment is growing substantially, to the point where manually
editing fstab is becoming a real PITA, and also creates an environment for
inconsistencies (and minor typos). So I really need Puppet to manage
those mounts.
I'm not sure I would need automounter for these.
Thanks!
On Friday, September 20, 2013 9:30:35 AM UTC-4, jcbollinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Forrie wrote:
>>
>> This is something I've been concerned about -- and how to properly
>> approach this.
>>
>> For example, we can use Puppet to ensure that the directories (mount
>> points) exist and that the entries are present in /etc/fstab -- but I grow
>> very concerned about automating the NFS-mount part of this.
>>
>> I don't think we'd want to use autofs, as the namespace isn't visible
>> unless you "cd" directly into it. We nixed this idea with /home, for
>> example.
>>
>
>
> A nitpick: you don't specifically have to "cd" into an automounted
> filesystem to get it mounted; any access at all to the mount point itself
> or any child path will do ('ls', fopen(3), I/O redirection, etc.). A child
> path works to get the filesystem mounted even if it doesn't actually
> correspond to a real file.
>
> In a few places I use symlinks to automounted directories. The symlinks
> provide visibility in the expected location, but I get all the goodness of
> automounting (however much that may or may not be).
>
>
>
>>
>> What would be the safest ideal way to approach this?
>>
>>
>
> It's not clear what exactly you hope to achieve. Is it different from
> what declaring a Mount with ensure => 'present' will do (which is to ensure
> the fs is listed in fstab without managing whether it is mounted)?
>
> You cannot get around the fact that it is impossible to see or touch the
> mount point directory underneath a mounted filesystem. Any access to the
> mount point path refers to the root of the mounted filesystem instead.
> That is a matter of fundamental Unix architecture, quite outside Puppet's
> scope.
>
>
> John
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
