Seconded. For debugging purposes, the webrick master is still useful as well.
On 03/06/2015 06:04 PM, Trevor Vaughan wrote: > I was going back and forth on this and I have to agree with John. > > There have been several times where I pushed out a lightweight Puppet > server on a VM running 512M RAM, 1 CPU, just to try something in a > 'production-like' scenario. > > I'm OK with losing Rack support, but a lightweight server instance is > great for testing. > > Trevor > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:01 PM, John Bollinger > <john.bollin...@stjude.org <mailto:john.bollin...@stjude.org>> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 10:30:47 PM UTC-6, Eric Sorenson wrote: > > My hypothesis is if you're just dipping a toe in the water to > try out Puppet, running standalone with `puppet apply` is > probably going to work better than a webrick agent/server setup. > > > > I'm doubtful of the validity of that hypothesis. The use cases for > `puppet apply` tend to be different from the use cases for agent / > master. If I wanted to try out Puppet for a scenario in which agent > / master was the appropriate choice, or especially if the agent / > master setup itself were part of what I wanted to evaluate, then > `puppet apply` would simply not be a good alternative. > > As light-duty as webrick may be, it has the virtue of being > extremely easy get up and running. I'm not specially tied to > webrick itself, but I think Puppet benefits from having a > lightweight, out-of-the-box server option. > > > John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/54F9DFE0.7010503%40alumni.tu-berlin.de. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
