On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:40:45 +0000 Dean Arnold <dean.arn...@arm.com> wrote:
> In our LAVA setup we currently have our control server and then we > have 4 remote workers. On these workers we have different device > types distributed evenly to prevent complete loss of a particular > type if one of our workers fails. > > On each worker we have our per device configuration specified > here: /srv/lava/instances/<instance>/etc/lava-dispatcher/devices And > our device-type configuration > here: /srv/lava/instances/<instance>/etc/lava-dispatcher/device-types > > In the device-types config files we are overriding the defaults with > ARM specific settings such as, the license_file in the case of fast > models, or the partitions in the case of vexpress-tc2. The settings > for a particular device-type are the same for the instances running > on all workers, therefore it means we have the same > <device-type>.conf on multiple machines. It would be good if I could > define the ARM specific settings in one place rather than for each > dispatcher. In the current lab, the admins use tools like salt to deploy device configuration files which ensure the same values are distributed across multiple machines. > What I was wondering was whether or not the remote workers inherited > lava-dispatcher device type configs from the master or whether each > workers dispatcher was stand alone? If I placed the device-type > config files specific to our setup > under /srv/lava/instances/<instance>/etc/lava-dispatcher/device-types > on our control server, would all of the remote workers pull these > settings in? No. What LAVA is currently doing is using salt to push the file from "control" to each remote worker. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
