Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Chuck Anderson]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:30:51AM +0300, Martin T wrote:
> So in order to sum this up, "commit check" makes sense at least in
> following cases:
> 
> 1) confirm "commit confirmed" action. This does not waste a rollback.
> 2) test errors for configuration which will be saved and committed later
> 3) make intermediate syntax checks in case of large configurations in
> order to make sure that configuration applied to candidate
> configuration so far is fine
> 4) use "commit check" to trigger commit scripts
5) coordinate commits across multiple devices to be sure they will all
succeed at the same time when the final commits are given
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Phil Shafer]

Chuck Anderson writes:
>On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:30:51AM +0300, Martin T wrote:
>> So in order to sum this up, "commit check" makes sense at least in
>> following cases:
>> 
>> 1) confirm "commit confirmed" action. This does not waste a rollback.
>> 2) test errors for configuration which will be saved and committed later
>> 3) make intermediate syntax checks in case of large configurations in
>> order to make sure that configuration applied to candidate
>> configuration so far is fine
>> 4) use "commit check" to trigger commit scripts
>5) coordinate commits across multiple devices to be sure they will all
>succeed at the same time when the final commits are given

Similarly pre-checking a "commit at" makes sense.

Thanks,
 Phil
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Emmanuel Halbwachs]

Phil Shafer (Wed 2015-09-30 21:14:53 -0400) :
> >o/t but is there any difference between "show | compare" and "show | diff" ?
> 
> Nope, it's just an alias, similar to "grep" for "match".

Wow, great!
How can one list those standard aliases?

Thanks,

-- 
Emmanuel
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Martin T]

So in order to sum this up, "commit check" makes sense at least in
following cases:

1) confirm "commit confirmed" action. This does not waste a rollback.
2) test errors for configuration which will be saved and committed later
3) make intermediate syntax checks in case of large configurations in
order to make sure that configuration applied to candidate
configuration so far is fine
4) use "commit check" to trigger commit scripts



regards,
Martin


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Alexander Arseniev
 wrote:
> Hello,
> To add to what's been already covered  - "commit check" runs the commit
> scripts as if it is an actual commit.
> And You can do pretty much everything with commit scripts, including logging
> to another node and comparing/changing the config there.
> One use case is to keep DetNAT pools & prefix-lists synced between 2 CGNAT
> nodes in case inter-node failover happens. So if You want to always make
> changes on 1 such node only, and never bother with manually checking config
> consistency, then use a commit script which logs in to a neighbor node and
> does comparison and maybe fixes some trivial discrepansies. In this case,
> You want to run "commit check" first, to get 2nd node changed, and then
> "commit comment" to get 1st node aligned with the 2nd.
> HTH
> Thanks
> Alex
>
> On 28/09/2015 22:24, Martin T wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>
>
> thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Tom Storey]

On 29 September 2015 at 15:39, Phil Shafer  wrote:
> "show | compare"

o/t but is there any difference between "show | compare" and "show | diff" ?
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Martin T]

Harald, Ryan:

Great tips, thanks!



Chuck,

< "commit comment" will log the comment even if the commit fails.
Doing "commit check" first allows you to avoid this extra comment in
the "show system commits" log.


A failed "commit comment" does not create an entry to "show system
commit" log at least in my Junos 12.3R6.6 :


[edit]
root@M10i# run show system commit
rescue  2014-09-09 14:04:51 UTC by root via cli

[edit]
root@M10i# show interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0
vlan-id 0;
family inet {
filter {
input input-fw; ## reference 'input-fw' not found
}
}

[edit]
root@M10i# commit comment "ingress fw filter to ge-0/0/0.0"
[edit interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0 family inet]
  'filter'
Referenced filter 'input-fw' is not defined
error: configuration check-out failed

[edit]
root@M10i# run show system commit
rescue  2014-09-09 14:04:51 UTC by root via cli

[edit]
root@M10i#


However, failed "commit comment" does create a log entry to messages
file. Or does it depend on what exactly failed?



Phil,

< Doing a pre-check before a commit is mostly about working up the
confidence that you're not going to break something.

Yeah, but if one will "commit" the changes right after(i.e. no
additional changes to candidate configuration) "commit check", then
there isn't a difference.


regards,
Martin

On 9/29/15, Bryan Ashley  wrote:
> Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but another good use of commit check
> is to confirm a commit confirmed. Typically people will issue a commit
> confirmed X to automatically rollback a change that didn't work. If the
> change did work many folks issue a commit to save the change and move
> forward. The problem with this is both your commit confirmed and subsequent
> commit burn rollbacks. A commit check will satisfy a commit confirmed
> without burning an additional rollback.
>
>
> Sent using CloudMagic
> Email
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Ryan Harden
> > wrote:
>
>
> We regularly make large config changes, 'commit check' to confirm there
> aren't any syntax errors, then save the change as a patch to be applied
> during a maintenance window.
> This saves a ton of time during maint windows as we can do configs the day
> before and at least be sure there are no syntax errors in the patch. Maint
> windows simply become: load the patch, commit confirmed comment blah,
> verify, done.
>
> /Ryan
>
> Ryan Harden
> Research and Advanced Networking Architect
> University of Chicago - ASN160
> P: 773.834.5441
>
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
>> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
>> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
>> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
>> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
>> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
>> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
>> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
>> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Martin
>> ___
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Phil Shafer]

Tom Storey writes:
>o/t but is there any difference between "show | compare" and "show | diff" ?

Nope, it's just an alias, similar to "grep" for "match".  I didn't think
I could teach my fingers not to type the unix names.

Thanks,
 Phil
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Alexander Arseniev]

Hello,
To add to what's been already covered  - "commit check" runs the commit 
scripts as if it is an actual commit.
And You can do pretty much everything with commit scripts, including 
logging to another node and comparing/changing the config there.
One use case is to keep DetNAT pools & prefix-lists synced between 2 
CGNAT nodes in case inter-node failover happens. So if You want to 
always make changes on 1 such node only, and never bother with manually 
checking config consistency, then use a commit script which logs in to a 
neighbor node and does comparison and maybe fixes some trivial 
discrepansies. In this case, You want to run "commit check" first, to 
get 2nd node changed, and then "commit comment" to get 1st node aligned 
with the 2nd.

HTH
Thanks
Alex

On 28/09/2015 22:24, Martin T wrote:

Hi,

when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
"commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
"commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
(comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.


thanks,
Martin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp


___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Chuck Anderson]

I could be wrong about failed commits logging to "show system commit",
but I thought I saw that at least once.  We log commits with RANCID,
so we get email with the config diffs, including the "show system
commit" output.

Another reason to use commit check--when coordinating changes across
multiple devices, you might want them all to succeed at the same time
rather than having one fail the commit while the others succeed.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:29:52PM +0300, Martin T wrote:
> Harald, Ryan:
> 
> Great tips, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> < "commit comment" will log the comment even if the commit fails.
> Doing "commit check" first allows you to avoid this extra comment in
> the "show system commits" log.
> 
> 
> A failed "commit comment" does not create an entry to "show system
> commit" log at least in my Junos 12.3R6.6 :
> 
> 
> [edit]
> root@M10i# run show system commit
> rescue  2014-09-09 14:04:51 UTC by root via cli
> 
> [edit]
> root@M10i# show interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0
> vlan-id 0;
> family inet {
> filter {
> input input-fw; ## reference 'input-fw' not found
> }
> }
> 
> [edit]
> root@M10i# commit comment "ingress fw filter to ge-0/0/0.0"
> [edit interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0 family inet]
>   'filter'
> Referenced filter 'input-fw' is not defined
> error: configuration check-out failed
> 
> [edit]
> root@M10i# run show system commit
> rescue  2014-09-09 14:04:51 UTC by root via cli
> 
> [edit]
> root@M10i#
> 
> 
> However, failed "commit comment" does create a log entry to messages
> file. Or does it depend on what exactly failed?
> 
> 
> 
> Phil,
> 
> < Doing a pre-check before a commit is mostly about working up the
> confidence that you're not going to break something.
> 
> Yeah, but if one will "commit" the changes right after(i.e. no
> additional changes to candidate configuration) "commit check", then
> there isn't a difference.
> 
> 
> regards,
> Martin
> 
> On 9/29/15, Bryan Ashley  wrote:
> > Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but another good use of commit check
> > is to confirm a commit confirmed. Typically people will issue a commit
> > confirmed X to automatically rollback a change that didn't work. If the
> > change did work many folks issue a commit to save the change and move
> > forward. The problem with this is both your commit confirmed and subsequent
> > commit burn rollbacks. A commit check will satisfy a commit confirmed
> > without burning an additional rollback.
> >
> >
> > Sent using CloudMagic
> > Email
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Ryan Harden
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > We regularly make large config changes, 'commit check' to confirm there
> > aren't any syntax errors, then save the change as a patch to be applied
> > during a maintenance window.
> > This saves a ton of time during maint windows as we can do configs the day
> > before and at least be sure there are no syntax errors in the patch. Maint
> > windows simply become: load the patch, commit confirmed comment blah,
> > verify, done.
> >
> > /Ryan
> >
> > Ryan Harden
> > Research and Advanced Networking Architect
> > University of Chicago - ASN160
> > P: 773.834.5441
> >
> >> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> >> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> >> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> >> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> >> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> >> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> >> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> >> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> >> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
> >>
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Martin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Chuck Anderson]

"commit comment" will log the comment even if the commit fails.  Doing
"commit check" first allows you to avoid this extra comment in the
"show system commits" log.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:24:41AM +0300, Martin T wrote:
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Phil Shafer]

Aaron Dewell writes:
>Yes, the commit will fail if commit check would have also failed.

Yup, "commit check" just passes a flag into the commit logic which
triggers an early return.

>I tend to use commit 
>check as a check on myself when I've done a big cut-and-paste, or when 
>creating a bunch
>of objects.

"show | compare" is also useful for this sort of verification.

>The time to fail of commit check is less than commit if there are 
>discrepancies.  

This shouldn't be true, given that they share the same logic.

>>> If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"?

Doing a pre-check before a commit is mostly about working up the
confidence that you're not going to break something.  We've got
"commit confirmed" to help with this also.

Thanks,
 Phil
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Ryan Harden]

We regularly make large config changes, ‘commit check’ to confirm there aren’t 
any syntax errors, then save the change as a patch to be applied during a 
maintenance window.
This saves a ton of time during maint windows as we can do configs the day 
before and at least be sure there are no syntax errors in the patch. Maint 
windows simply become: load the patch, commit confirmed comment blah, verify, 
done.

/Ryan

Ryan Harden
Research and Advanced Networking Architect
University of Chicago - ASN160
P: 773.834.5441

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Bryan Ashley]

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but another good use of commit check is 
to confirm a commit confirmed. Typically people will issue a commit confirmed X 
to automatically rollback a change that didn't work. If the change did work 
many folks issue a commit to save the change and move forward. The problem with 
this is both your commit confirmed and subsequent commit burn rollbacks. A 
commit check will satisfy a commit confirmed without burning an additional 
rollback.


Sent using CloudMagic 
Email
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Ryan Harden 
> wrote:


We regularly make large config changes, 'commit check' to confirm there aren't 
any syntax errors, then save the change as a patch to be applied during a 
maintenance window.
This saves a ton of time during maint windows as we can do configs the day 
before and at least be sure there are no syntax errors in the patch. Maint 
windows simply become: load the patch, commit confirmed comment blah, verify, 
done.

/Ryan

Ryan Harden
Research and Advanced Networking Architect
University of Chicago - ASN160
P: 773.834.5441

> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>
>
> thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Brad Fleming]

I use it to make sure another admin hasn’t made changes overtop of mine. Also, 
I believe commit check can help in situations where you are using “edit 
private”.


> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Harald F. Karlsen]

On 28.09.2015 23:24, Martin T wrote:

Hi,

when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
"commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
"commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
(comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.



You can use "commit check" to confirm a "commit confirmed" action. That 
way you don't create a new configuration file in your rollback log every 
time you cancel a pending rollback.


--
Harald
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

[j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Martin T]

Hi,

when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
"commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
"commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
(comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.


thanks,
Martin
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Masood Ahmad Shah]

Hi - "commit check" is just there to verify the syntax and integrity of the
configuration, but do not activate it. Pretty self explanatory as you
already explained it :-)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Martin T  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>
>
> thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Aaron Dewell]

Yes, the commit will fail if commit check would have also failed.  I tend to 
use commit check as a check on myself when I’ve done a big cut-and-paste, or 
when creating a bunch of objects.  The time to fail of commit check is less 
than commit if there are discrepancies.  

On Sep 28, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Brad Fleming  wrote:
> I use it to make sure another admin hasn’t made changes overtop of mine. 
> Also, I believe commit check can help in situations where you are using “edit 
> private”.
> 
> 
>> On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Martin T  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
>> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
>> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
>> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
>> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
>> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
>> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
>> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
>> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>> 
>> 
>> thanks,
>> Martin
>> ___
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Re: [j-nsp] purpose of "commit check"?

[Graham Brown]

I echo what Harald mentions, I also follow with 'commit check' after using
'commit confirmed <> comment <> | display detail | no-more'

The | display detail is very handy when dealing with SRX with huge
configurations or in clusters that can take a worrying amount of time to
complete (especially at 03:00).

HTH,
Graham

Graham Brown
Twitter - @mountainrescuer 
LinkedIn 

On 29 September 2015 at 10:37, Harald F. Karlsen  wrote:

>
>
> On 28.09.2015 23:24, Martin T wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> when I commit the candidate configuration in Junos, I tend to execute
>> "commit check" and if configuration check succeeds, then I execute
>> "commit comment ". However, when I think about it, "commit
>> (comment)" itself should perform those very same checks that "commit
>> check" does. If yes, then what is the point of "commit check"? Only
>> purpose I could see is to check the validity of the candidate
>> configuration in the middle of the configuration process, i.e. to
>> check if the changes made in candidate configuration so far are fine
>> but the candidate configuration is not ready to be committed.
>>
>>
> You can use "commit check" to confirm a "commit confirmed" action. That
> way you don't create a new configuration file in your rollback log every
> time you cancel a pending rollback.
>
> --
> Harald
>
> ___
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp