Issue #6135 has been updated by Andrew Parker.
Trevor Vaughan wrote: > Why not do both? > > Option #1 is 'better' IMO since you can then do cross-site loading, etc... > but, as Luke points out, Option #2 is already compatible with existing > installations. > > The real issues that have to be tackled are: > > 1. How do you ensure that ALL PMs in the cluster have the exact same version > of a manifest given a particular time? > 2. How do you federate your Puppet PKI without breaking autosigning or having > some magic that pre-places a key? > 3. How do you ensure that all PM to PM communications are fully protected and > verified? (yeah, we have a PKI for that, but then you get into a full PKI > hierarchy, etc...) > I think you are pointing out issues with one possible implementation that could be done, but it isn't clear to me what exactly that implementation is. It sounds like you are thinking about making puppet master's join a cluster, load balance among themselves somehow, and (maybe) elect leaders. Is that what you are thinking? If so how does that solve the "thundering herd" problem? ---------------------------------------- Feature #6135: Elastic Compiler Pool https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/6135#change-74168 Author: Luke Kanies Status: Accepted Priority: Normal Assignee: eric sorenson Category: Target version: Affected Puppet version: Keywords: backlog Branch: Puppet deals poorly with the 'thundering herd' problem today, where a given system has sufficient capacity to respond to typical usage but falls down when usage goes above that (e.g., 10% of machines check in every minute normally, but 100% check in sometimes). The architecture should be switched to a model where client requests are queued, and then a pool of compilers respond to those requests as they're able to. The compiler pool could grow and shrink as needed, and at worst the queue would just be longer than one might like, rather than too many clients destroying a server. This has the added benefit of providing visibility of how busy the pool is, by assessing queue length. There are two basic models that could be used: * Clients use the message bus directly - they queue requests and wait for a response to get sent back to them. This is preferred, but won't always be possible because of client architectural limitations (e.g., firewalls). The benefit of this is that there aren't even open sockets on the server as requests come in. * Clients still connect with HTTP to the server, and the server handles queueing requests and returning compiled catalogs. This provides nearly as much scalability, and in some ways is preferable because it is fully compatible with existing Puppet installations. This should be accomplishable with just indirector plugins - a new terminus for queueing requests and returning catalogs, and a -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" 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/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
