@Daniel Pittman : don't worry about I will call the assumption - in a ml,
one has always to compromise between describe his all situation (hence, 20
pages mail) or do something rather shorter but clearly spotty. Your answers
were quite helpful anyway
@lab42: Your Puppi module sounds quite
Maybe I'm going a little nuts, this behaviour seems odd to me (and
inconsistent).
I have a puppet class like this:
class puppet::config {
File {
owner = puppet,
notify = Service[puppet],
}
file {
/etc/puppet/puppet.conf:
content = template(puppet/puppet.conf),
}
}
Great -
File {
owner = puppet,
notify = Service[puppetserver],
}
File[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf] {
content = template(puppet/puppet.conf,puppetserver/
puppet.conf),
notify + Service[puppet],
mode = 0600,
}
I disbelieve that's how you are supposed to use this plusignment
On Jan 17, 1:12 pm, Felix Frank felix.fr...@alumni.tu-berlin.de
wrote:
[snip]
Hi Frank,
I disbelieve that's how you are supposed to use this plusignment syntax.
This is how I'm used to seeing it:
class puppet::config {
file { foo: notify = Service[bar] }
}
class puppet::config::server
On 01/17/2011 02:52 PM, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
Hi Frank,
Felix.
then overridden here:
class puppetserver::config inherits puppet::config{
Oops - sorry, I completely missed that inherits clause in your previous
mail. Also your override syntax. *facepalm*
Also note that resource defaults
I have a problem today.
In my business, i have more than 10 linux servers , each of which runs
a puppet client.
on my puppet master server， sometimes , i need trigger every server to
update from puppet master right now , so i wirte a shell script to
traversal each server to run command puppet
You may want to look at utilizing mCollective to do this as it will provide a
more structured way to handle this task. In this case, 'available' hosts would
be queried and the execution would run on hosts in parallel.
http://www.puppetlabs.com/mcollective/introduction/
Also, Puppet Commander
one thing to keep in mind is if the server is the same name previously
there will be an issue where you will need to use the puppetca on the
master to clean out the old cert.
On Jan 14, 3:36 pm, Ohad Levy ohadl...@gmail.com wrote:
One way would be to enable autosign when you request your
Unfortunately thats a limitation of RPM which has been worked around
with YUM. YUM will do the resolution of dependencies if they are also
in one of the repositories configured on the system.
On Jan 13, 4:09 pm, donavan dona...@desinc.net wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:45 pm, Stephane sros...@gmail.com
Not sure what his issue was but in my organization we had one puppet
master with mod_passenger and puppet 2.6.3 running fine with 200
clients in a VM. We expanded to a 2 node cluster, with the original
puppet master serving as the master for the secondaries. The
secondaries have an F5 infront of
Matt,
what type of service/health-check do you use in F5?
What's URL (expected-string/HTTP-code) does the loadbalancer check to
determine if puppet is alive?
2011/1/17 Matt mjbl...@gmail.com
Not sure what his issue was but in my organization we had one puppet
master with mod_passenger and
Spoke too soon. Problem still exists. Will investigate further.
Any insights on how to control ruby's import order, or how to
further qualify a function like generate might be helpful.
Thanks,
Andree
On 01/16/2011 04:32 PM, Andree Jacobson wrote:
The issue will probably go away as CentOS get
I'm trying to get a feel for the actual use cases for the Schedule type in
Puppet.
Anyone care to help me out with some real world examples?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Puppet Users group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 18:38, Nigel Kersten ni...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
I'm trying to get a feel for the actual use cases for the Schedule type in
Puppet. Anyone care to help me out with some real world examples?
At my previous job we planned to used them to control update periods
for
Hi,
Can you instrument your code to
dump Process.uid and Process.gid from Ruby-space in the block? That
way we can help narrow down where things are going wrong.
Process.uid was telling me 500, which was the intended user. whoami
inside the execpipe was root though.
I've ended up doing this
I have some 'service' definitions in a parameterised class:
class snort($name, $master) {
service{
snort.$master:
start = sudo -u snort /home/snort/bin/restart-snort
$sensor ,
..
}
which get invoked from within a define:
define sensor ( $name, $master,
16 matches
Mail list logo
