>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luke> Thomas Delaet wrote: >> > I couldn't agree more. However, another (more lightweight) approach >> to getting more data is to get more validation tools in >> production environments. They are less intrusive and the >> languages these tools use can be seen as a set of constraints on >> the domain model of configuration management. These constraints >> can be used in tools for automatic generation of infrastructure >> policies. Luke> Depending on your definition of validation (whether you mean Luke> "is my configuration valid?" or "are my hosts in sync with Luke> their configurations?"), both Puppet and Bcfg2 (and cfengine, Luke> to some extent), and most likely any of the other tools, can Luke> be used for validation. I actually did a project for a client Luke> a few years ago who specifically never wanted the machines Luke> changed; they only wanted reports on invalid configurations. I think that most people are talking about validation in terms of "all systems only point at systems configured as DNS servers", Paul's "2 dhcp servers on every lan segment", etc. -nld _______________________________________________ lssconf-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
