Re: [Puppet Users] Puppet can't successfully restart puppetd
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Martin Alfke tux...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.06.2012, at 11:01, Felix Frank wrote:
On 06/27/2012 10:51 AM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
is there something special about
the puppet service that it issuing the equivalent of 'service puppet
restart' doesn't actually work?
Oh, it works, but think of what you're having puppet do: By calling the
initscript and telling it to restart, it first has to stop puppet,
i.e., send TERM to the agent process. So the agent is committing suicide
mid-run, taking the invocation of the initscript with it. Now nobody's
there to start puppet up again.
I've worked around this using exec { echo service puppet restart | at
now+5min } in the past, but this is quite the hack. Personally I have
found the cron model much more convenient that the long-running agent.
We redefined the restart command:
restart = '/usr/bin/nohup /etc/init.d/puppet restart '
- Martin
Late reply, however if you're using Ubuntu 10.04 or greater you can
avoid the nohup:
hasrestart = true;
Edward
--
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.
Re: [Puppet Users] Inherited 0.2.5 installation
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 1:00 AM, genkuro genk...@gmail.com wrote: I'm guessing the 0.2.5 - 2.x migration must be common. Can I expect this to be a slam dunk? We recently did a large (100 nodes) migration from 0.25 to 2.6. The biggest issue was ensuring all our modules worked without any unexpected changes. Standard testing will pick up anything like this and we only had a couple of very minor issues. A good tip if you plan to 'upgrade puppet with puppet' like we did on a debian platform remember to set 'hasrestart = true' on your puppet service 'init' provider. 40 nodes had updated themselves before we realised puppet didn't know how to start itself back up, without that switch, after being upgraded. This may apply to other platforms so test for it. Regards, Edward -- 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.
[Puppet Users] Passing an array to a chained provider
Afternoon all,
I am looking to do the following using Puppet to simplify
relationships for our AD class. I've stripped it down to the basic
relation I'd like to work.
$kerberos_packages = [winbind, krb5-config, libpam-krb5,
portmap, krb5-user, samba-common]
$kerberos_dependencies = [/etc/nsswitch.conf, /etc/samba/smb.conf,
/etc/pam.d/common-account, /etc/pam.d/common-auth, /etc/pam.d/
common-session]
package { $kerberos_packages: ensure = installed }
Package[$kerberos_packages] - File[$kerberos_dependencies]
file { files listed here with various options }
This does not generate an error for the puppet parser however the
puppet master fails to compile modules with an error.
Jun 16 14:29:25 puppetmaster puppet-master[9820]: Could not find
resource 'Package[winbind]Package[krb5-config]Package[libpam-
krb5]Package[portmap]Package[krb5-user]Package[samba-common]' for
relationship on 'File[/etc/nsswitch.conf]File[/etc/samba/
smb.conf]File[/etc/pam.d/common-account]File[/etc/pam.d/common-
auth]File[/etc/pam.d/common-session]]' on node example.domain
Please note the issue isn't in sending the array, Package[one,
two] - File[a,b] still fails.
The documentation on chaining is literally the brief post by the guy
who wrote the patch that added this functionality. There is also
mention of the | | relationship operator however I cannot figure out
how to limit its actions to the items in my arrays.
So I'd like to know if I've made a mistake in my syntax or if the
chaining is limited to one-to-one relations? If it is limited to one-
to-one relations is there already a bug asking for many-to-many passed
via array?
Thanks,
Edward Savage
--
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.
