On 07/15/2014 03:16 PM, Wesley Duffee-Braun wrote:
not to go too far into the weeds, but I'm not sure I agree with "puppet
is for people that can't rsync" and while I get the gist of that
statement, having a standard toolkit (puppet, chef, whathaveyou) scales
much better. It's the "who will run our shit if you get hit by a bus"
situation. or the "let's not have to spend a month's salary bringing the
new guy up to speed on our specialized tools" - just hire someone who
already knows puppet or whatever.
But you see, gentlemen, I am smack dab in the middle of that debate and
I can make the case for both sides.
Use case problem number one - if we were setting up three new servers a
week, we could justify more time in two ways: an implementation engine
such as puppet and more replication by copying vm guests or imaging from
clonezilla (for a bare metal server). Our volume is low enough that I
can't justify much of that effort. Trust me, I clone servers whenever
possible.
Our current toolkit is that set of PXE boots, kickstarts and bash
scripts. Those scripts get out of date and broken in a hurry. We have
quite a, ummmm, collection of packages from all over the place. We
would benefit from replacing our existing scripts with a more visible tool.
Howard
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"NLUG" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
