[nycbug-talk] New Setup Questions

Matt Juszczak matt at atopia.net
Fri Apr 17 23:30:40 EDT 2009

When you say you know several admins using "it" and quite happy with "it", 
are you referring to CFEngine or Puppet?

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, David Lawson wrote:

> Actually, if puppet has good BSD support, the package management, 
> particularly across multiple hardware architectures and the like, seems like 
> a really good fit for it.  From what I recall of the (quite old at this 
> point) presentation I saw about it, that was a big advantage.  I'm not sure 
> how CFEngine works with package management, I'm sure it has a facility for 
> it, but I know a couple admins, several of whom are BSD users, who are using 
> it and quite happy with it.  Fifty boxes is kind of small for that level of 
> administrative overhead, but what you pay in effort up front, you get back in 
> the long term.
> --Dave
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote:
>> That's what I'm trying to figure out.  These two questions sort of 
>> intertwine themselves.  If we decide to go the "ports scripted" route, 
>> we'll most likely have scripts like this in SVN:
>> ./webserver-setup.sh -h<option1> -i<option2>
>> which will basically do a cvsup /etc/ports-supfile, install necessary ports 
>> (all the same version of course), install php, etc.  Then, we'd push the 
>> configuration files via svn as well.
>> If we decide to go a package route, we might even put the packages in SVN, 
>> so that you can "check out" the repository of packages.
>> I've looked at puppet, and I've looked at CF engine: puppet seems limited, 
>> and CF Engine seems complex.  Seems like it's a pick your poison.
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>> Not to start up the cfengine vs puppet debate again, but one question. How 
>>> do you plan to handle package installation?
>>> That's one thing where CMS can really help.
>>> -Brian
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Matt Juszczak <matt at atopia.net> wrote:
>>>     We're launching an entirely new setup across FreeBSD boxes - about 50
>>>     servers total.  I have two things which I'm still somewhat debating, 
>>> and
>>>     thought I'd get a second opinion.
>>>     First, instead of using CFEngine to manage the boxes, I was thinking 
>>> of
>>>     using an SVN-based setup.  Each server would checkout their 
>>> appropriate
>>>     files via SVN, and I would "trigger" each server when it needs an 
>>> update
>>>     via config files that would be fetched often via either ftp or svn. 
>>> This
>>>     is neat and flexible, but not as complex as CFEngine.  Thoughts?
>>>     Second, I'm trying to decide how to do packages.  Across the 50 
>>> servers
>>>     we'll have about 6 or 7 different hardware sets.  Some will be Dell, 
>>> some
>>>     IBM, etc.  Most will be 64 bit boxes (to address larger memory 
>>> ranges).
>>>     Should I set up a single server for each class (and do make package to
>>>     create packages for each box), or should I just compile ports from 
>>> source
>>>     on each box, verifying that I'm installing the same package version 
>>> each
>>>     time (which will allow each box to take advantage of the benefits of 
>>> its
>>>     specific hardware).
>>>     Those are my two questions, and I'd appreciate any input anyone can
>>>     provide.  Thanks!
>>>     -Matt
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     talk mailing list
>>>     talk at lists.nycbug.org
>>>     http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>> --
>>> - Brian Gupta
>>> New York City user groups calendar:
>>> http://nyc.brandorr.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at lists.nycbug.org
>> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

More information about the talk mailing list