On 06/10/11 06:40, Jagane Sundar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:00PM, Jagane Sundar wrote:
approaches you are familiar with. Chef/Puppet et. al. are not interesting
to
Is this a technical lack of interest as in these solutions do not perform
as
you expect them or this is a policy thing of some kind?
No policy or anything of that sort. It's a personal preference. Chef,
puppet, etc. are not full feedback systems. They keep doing the same thing
over and over again trying to to get the system into a 'desired' state. A
state machine driven full feedback system works better. When things go
wrong, that information can be acted upon.
You've just started the script vs goal seeking CM war. goal-seeking has
better recovery, but can jitter between different desired states in the
classic strange attractor patten. It federates well, and if you look at
intranet and internet routing, it's roughly what happens there, though
BGP lets autonomous networks make their own policy decisions.
Scripts work if the starting state is always the same; they put you in
the same final state. Usually.
for more details, see:
http://www.slideshare.net/steve_l/dynamic-hadoop-clusters
In large clusters you want consistent machine state and that is where
HPC-style solutions win: they can work with ILO nets to do things like
BIOS upgrades, and install the RPM set in a strict order to ensure the
final state is the same. (RPMs contain scripts, remember).
DevOps style tooling is good for dynamic clusters, esp on cloud
infrastructure -which is the most dynamic, and where you can manage a
single starting image, which makes it implicitly consistent across all
nodes.
-steve
