Also, be aware that (unless this changed in 3.0), Exec statements and Service statements in Puppet stack into some sort of queue.
Moving all Execs to simple native types will increase your performance dramatically and there are good examples of how to do this in the Puppet Labs stdlib module. I posted about this before but I'm not sure if there was a resolution. Trevor On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Dan Bode <d...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Robjon <robertjo...@gmx.us> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I am pretty new to this space, playing around with a few tools. >> I am trying to read up on how I would scale Puppet (or other tools) up in >> my installation, and came across this blog post comparing Puppet and >> CFEngine: >> http://www.blogcompiler.com/2012/09/30/scalability-of-cfengine-and-puppet-2/ >> >> The numbers presented here are pretty extreme: CFEngine agents running 166 >> times faster than Puppet agents in a small installation > > > The results of that paper are not very realistic. The benchmark is based on > doing nothing but running echo commands. Since cfengine is written in C (or > C++) there is not question that it will perform many actions faster than > Puppet, but saying that it is 100X faster or whatever is disingenuous > (unless you can manage your infrastructure with nothing but echo commands). > I would be more interested to see comparisons based on real admin tasks like > managing packages or services. > > >> >> - and the difference is increasing? >> Also, it seems to be the case that Puppet is more centralized which >> results in everything slowing down: "as the master gets more loaded, all the >> Puppet agents run slower". > > > it is possible to either run puppet with or without a master. If you want > more centralized control, use a master, if you need something that scales to > the extreme, run puppet without a master using puppet apply (which is must > more similar to how cfengine works) > >> >> >> Is this correct? Could some of you with more experience please comment on >> this? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Users" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/5LcBoBBaZGQJ. >> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. -- Trevor Vaughan Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc (410) 541-6699 tvaug...@onyxpoint.com -- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
