On 21.05.2009, at 16:58, Michael DeHaan wrote:
Thomas von Steiger wrote:
which way is better, deploy func with puppet or puppet with func ?
Func is push-based, which means your systems need to be up and
running (and addressable) to talk to them. So it's not a good
solution to make sure a certain package is available on all of your
infrastructure if you aren't positive all of your infrastructure is
up and accessible. It also doesn't ensure that an installed package /
stays/ installed, or that a new system installed later would have
it. This can result in a rather inconsistent network if you try to
do use it for that purpose.
I would (A) ensure puppet is deployed with kickstart, and/or (B)
have your puppet recipes install func.
Since Func is not really a configuration management system, it's
best for those one-off tasks that kickstart and Puppet don't cover,
i.e. "do this to my systems right now", or "generate this report".
It is exceedingly good at /both/ of those things -- but deploying
apps and having a record of what you have deployed (which IMHO is
very important) is not something it does. Both kickstart and Puppet
have this because you can look at the kickstart/recipe to see what
you have instructed each system to do.
This means, rollout puppet and make sure that puppet controlles the
func rail rollout for a existing platform.
And all the rpm's are sitting in a satellite/spacewalk/cobbler repo.
For this it can be very practicale to use one certmaster for puppet
and func.
For new systems it's clear, put this in kickstart.
What we need todo for using one certmaster for all?
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list
