The slate is posted!
https://lopsa.org/content/2013-lopsa-board-election-update-candidates
--
Jesse Trucks, GCUX
jtru...@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org
On Apr 25, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jesse Trucks wrote:
> The Leadership Committee told both the Board and the LOPSA Live
> attendees (on April 3,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Tom Limoncelli wrote
>
> The benefit of a message queue system is that the distribution of
> messages to all the endpoints is highly optimized. Many of these
> systems use multicast for all systems on a particular IP subnet and
> other interesting techniques to ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The recent Saltstack discussion touched on some interesting issues.
I've spent some time looking at similar issues...
The Assimilation Monitoring Project (AMP) does discovery-driven
monitoring. It discovers servers, services, switches, switch
conne
> "Morgan" == Morgan Blackthorne writes:
Morgan> Newer versions of Chef actually embed everything; just drop
Morgan> and go. They call it the omnibus versions. It's great for not
Morgan> having to deal with the headaches of ruby versions... you can
Morgan> still install it via gem if you want
Corey> On Apr 25, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "John Stoffel" wrote:
>> So looking at Salt and seeing that it requires Python is still a
>> gotcha, but possibly one I can deal with now.
Corey> So does yum. :-)
Show me yum on Solaris...
Corey> On a pristine CentOS6 system it only grabs the zeromq bin
Tom Limoncelli wrote:
> >From your workstation open 10,000 SSH connections (as if you are
> updating 10,000 machines). Chances are your machine doesn't have
> enough RAM for that many /usr/bin/ssh processes.
Heh, been there, done that:
$ w
10:45 AM up 51 days, 22:19, 11 users, load averages:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Michael Tiernan
wrote:
> Can I ask a side question about this statement? On the whole, I can
> believe the statement but I'd like to ask for a bit more clarification
> on it. Not to question the statement in general but to learn more
> about the overall process.
H
On 04/25/13 17:02, Michael Tiernan wrote:
Please tell me if I get this wrong but as I see it, each one of these
connections (individually) has four stages to it.
Stage 1, network request & handshake to establish connection to now
talk to "ssh".
TCP handshake in kernel plus allocation of buf
> "Chef works atop ssh, which – while the gold standard for cryptographically
> secure systems management – is computationally expensive to the point where
> most master servers fall over under the weight of 700-1500 clients."
Can I ask a side question about this statement? On the whole, I can
bel
Corey,
Related to this point...
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Atom Powers wrote:
> Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
> 'for' loop."
Your blog post makes the point that Salt is more than that and give an
example of specifying config management idempot
Thanks to Paul, Morgan, and Elijah for pointing out an inaccuracy:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 11:33 AM, Morgan Blackthorne wrote:
>>
>> "Chef works atop ssh, which – while the gold standard for cryptographically
>> secure systems management – is computatio
On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Chris Snell wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Paul Graydon wrote:
>
>> On 04/25/2013 10:58 AM, John Stoffel wrote:
>>> Chef, puppet, etc all seemed to want me to first install python or
>>> ruby or something else that wasn't part of my base systems. This has
>>> change
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 04/25/2013 10:58 AM, John Stoffel wrote:
Chef, puppet, etc all seemed to want me to first install python or
ruby or something else that wasn't part of my base systems. This has
changed over time, and esp as I've finally moved away from Solaris 8
in a
On 04/25/2013 11:33 AM, Morgan Blackthorne wrote:
"Chef works atop ssh, which -- while the gold standard for
cryptographically secure systems management -- is computationally
expensive to the point where most master servers fall over under the
weight of 700-1500 clients."
This is factually
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:58 PM, John Stoffel wrote:
> This has been the big issue keeping me from deploying configuration
> management at $WORK, because I have to convince all the rest of the
> team that it's really worth the hassle and change in mind set.
>
> For me, supporting Solaris 8/10 Spa
On 04/25/2013 10:58 AM, John Stoffel wrote:
Phillip> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be implying that
Phillip> Salt is not helping you do anything more than run commands.
Phillip> If so, it's important to note that it can both run commands
Phillip> and manage config ala puppet style.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Corey Quinn wrote:
> I haven't picked a fight in a while, so I wrote a blog post about Salt.
>
>
> http://blog.smartbear.com/software-quality/bid/283535/A-Taste-of-Salt-Like-Puppet-Except-It-Doesn-t-Suck
>
>
What's this in your post about chef requiring ssh to ru
On Apr 25, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "John Stoffel" wrote:
>
> So looking at Salt and seeing that it requires Python is still a
> gotcha, but possibly one I can deal with now.
So does yum. :-) On a pristine CentOS6 system it only grabs the zeromq
bindings, the YAML parser, and a couple of other pyt
> "Phillip" == Phillip Steinbachs writes:
Phillip> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Atom Powers wrote:
>> Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
>> 'for' loop."
>>
>> I've been using CfEngine for about a decade and recently moved to a puppet
>> infrastructure. I can
AP> Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
AP> 'for' loop."
PS> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be implying that Salt is
PS> not helping you do anything more than run commands. If so, it's
PS> important to note that it can both run commands and mana
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Atom Powers wrote:
Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
'for' loop."
I've been using CfEngine for about a decade and recently moved to a puppet
infrastructure. I can say with confidence that there are times when you
want to have more
On 04/25/2013 03:32 PM, Atom Powers wrote:
> Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
> 'for' loop."
>
This.
The point of entering a configuration-management paradigm is to benefit
from the art of those who have gone before you, not to free yourself
from constr
Because configuration management is about a lot more than "running ssh in a
'for' loop."
I've been using CfEngine for about a decade and recently moved to a puppet
infrastructure. I can say with confidence that there are times when you
want to have more control over what your configuration managem
On 2013-04-25 at 12:19 -0400, Will Dennis wrote:
> Intrigued... I'd like to hear a (reasoned) argument against using Salt,
> especially for those of us on the cusp of rolling out a new config mgmt.
> system...
Here's a slightly redacted version of an analysis I wrote on Jan 2nd for
a different aud
Intrigued... I'd like to hear a (reasoned) argument against using Salt,
especially for those of us on the cusp of rolling out a new config mgmt.
system...
From: discuss-boun...@lists.lopsa.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.lopsa.org] On Behalf Of Corey Quinn
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 11:58
The Leadership Committee told both the Board and the LOPSA Live
attendees (on April 3, 2013) that this year's LOPSA Board of Directors
slate would be announced on April 15, 2013.
That was 10 days ago.
Anyone from the Leadership Committee willing to comment?
Jesse
--
Jesse Trucks, GCUX
jtru...@l
I haven't picked a fight in a while, so I wrote a blog post about Salt.
http://blog.smartbear.com/software-quality/bid/283535/A-Taste-of-Salt-Like-Puppet-Except-It-Doesn-t-Suck
-- Corey___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa
Bah...looks like this was solved before I even responded.
I believe that was record response times on this mailing list!
-Evan
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Evan Pettrey wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I'm not to provide an answer. However, I just tested this in a Windows
> environment and I can pad
Mike,
I'm not to provide an answer. However, I just tested this in a Windows
environment and I can pad any of the last 3 octets. However, padding the
first octet results in pinging with base-8 vs. 10...perhaps that is a clue?
Best,
Evan
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Mike Julian wrote:
>
You can also do hex, fwiw:
$ ping 172.24.178.124
PING 172.24.178.124 (172.24.178.124) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.046 ms
64 bytes from 172.24.178.124: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms
$ ping 172.24.178.0x7C
PING 172.24.178.0x7C (172.24.178.124) 56(8
Don't worry, it took me a bit to get it too. :)
I did the exact same thing as you, until the octal thing clicked.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 08:16 AM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-25 09:12, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I get a dif
On 04/25/2013 08:16 AM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
On 2013-04-25 09:12, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
Mike,
I get a different behavior:
On LinuxMint Nadia (3.5.0-27 kernel, ping utility, iputils-sss20101006),
Debian 6, Oracle linux 5 (kernel 2.6.18), solaris 9, Windows 7, and
Mac OS
10.8 I get:
ping 10.1.2.
Yep, that's right.
Ping something like 192.168.011.1 and you'll see it actually pings
192.168.9.1
If you give it a number that's not octal, then it treats it as a hostname
because it's an invalid number.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
> On 2013-04-25 09:12, Ski Kacorosk
On 2013-04-25 09:12, Ski Kacoroski wrote:
Mike,
I get a different behavior:
On LinuxMint Nadia (3.5.0-27 kernel, ping utility, iputils-sss20101006),
Debian 6, Oracle linux 5 (kernel 2.6.18), solaris 9, Windows 7, and Mac OS
10.8 I get:
ping 10.1.2.27, 10.001.2.27, 10.1.002.27 works
ping 10.1.
Mike,
I get a different behavior:
On LinuxMint Nadia (3.5.0-27 kernel, ping utility, iputils-sss20101006),
Debian 6, Oracle linux 5 (kernel 2.6.18), solaris 9, Windows 7, and Mac
OS 10.8 I get:
ping 10.1.2.27, 10.001.2.27, 10.1.002.27 works
ping 10.1.2.027 does this: PING 10.1.2.027 (10.1.2
Hello list,
I'm a heavily seasoned Asterisk admin, having maintained it at three
separate workplaces now. I've run into a problem with some Polycom VVX
phones with transferring. The REFER gets a response of 481 (call leg
doesn't exist) and the phone fails to transfer. It happens intermittently
Hint: leading 0 indicates base 8, not base 10. :-)
-- Corey
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Mike Julian wrote:
> Perhaps this is totally normal behavior, in which case, I'm really curious
> why:
>
> If I ping an IP with padded zeros in the last octet (eg, 192.168.1.001), the
> ping succeeds.
>
Perhaps this is totally normal behavior, in which case, I'm really curious
why:
If I ping an IP with padded zeros in the last octet (eg, 192.168.1.001),
the ping succeeds.
If any other octet is padded (eg, 192.168.001.1), the ping treats the IP as
a hostname and fails. It fails no matter how many
38 matches
Mail list logo
