[Puppet Users] Re: exec : creates parameter does not create the file

2009-06-27 Thread Swati Tiwari
That's definitely way better than what I was planning on doing, thanks Peter! 2009/6/27 Peter Meier > > Hi > > > exec { "sources": > >command => "sudo gem sources -a http://gems.github.com/ > > > /tmp/githubadded", > >creates => "/tmp/githubadded" > > } > > > > I hope that's the

[Puppet Users] Re: Problems running on Mac OS X

2009-06-27 Thread Allan B. Marcus
I don't think a flat package works on 10.4, that's why packages still need to be wrapped in a dmg. -Allan On Fri, June 26, 2009 10:35 pm, Jason Hueske wrote: > Nigel, if you have similar scripts for flat or dmg pkgs I would love > to take a look. Does puppet's support such packages? Did you hav

[Puppet Users] Re: Making a file out of fragments

2009-06-27 Thread Peter Meier
Hi > Currently I build all the files with a derivation of the > Apt_Repository recipe (http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/ > Recipes/Apt_Repositories). So I would need to write these files to a > temp dir on the client and run concat on them. this is a working solution. > Is there a way

[Puppet Users] Re: exec : creates parameter does not create the file

2009-06-27 Thread Peter Meier
Hi > exec { "sources": >command => "sudo gem sources -a http://gems.github.com/ > > /tmp/githubadded", >creates => "/tmp/githubadded" > } > > I hope that's the right way to do it... I would rather do: exec { "sources": command => "sudo gem sources -a http://gems.github

[Puppet Users] Re: node cache and Passenger

2009-06-27 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
On Jun 25, 7:11 pm, Rob McBroom wrote: > I've started using Passenger and it seems to be working just fine, but   > I see this in the logs on the puppetmaster for what looks like every   > run on every node. > >      Jun 25 13:02:53 puppet puppetmasterd[7825]: Expiring the node   > cache of clien

[Puppet Users] Re: Performance of Passenger vs. Mongrel

2009-06-27 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
On Jun 26, 11:19 pm, Scott Smith wrote: > Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > > What worries me is, that you are saying it takes twice as long and > > your load is twice as high. So you're actually seeing a 4-time worse > > performance, which is /very/ bad. > > Which processes do you see running?