Hi,
On 11-12-2013 10:51:08, Dan Bode wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had a bit of time to research the existing device code to see if I can
> use it for an integration with two specific use cases:
>
> 1. discovery/inventory - access hardware inventory and store it somewhere
> where it can be retrieved.
>
> So far, device supports this use case.
> - specify a list of device endpoints in device.conf
> - run puppet device to get their facts to serve as inventory (although
> puppet device looks like it gets facts and requests catalogs, I will
> probably call the facts method directly to just get the facts)
> - have the front end query these facts from PuppetDB
>
> 2. management - manage the process of bringing up a cluster from scratch
>
> This is the use case where puppet device is problematic.
>
> In this use case, an external system needs to specify how a collection of
> resources should be configured. The types of these resources are
> heterogeneous, for example:
>
> - Server
> - Storage
> - Network
> - add Port
> - create server
>
> These hardware configuration rules (and their dependencies) map pretty
> cleanly to the Puppet DSL and the Resource/Graph model. Where a manifests
> represents multiple devices and multiple endpoints.
>
> I had the following issues with puppet device for this use case:
>
> 1. It iterates through the endpoints and configures them one at a time
>
> This is probably the biggest barrier. I need to keep track of a collection
> of resources that target multiple endpoints and apply them in a certain
> order. Looking at the device code it seems to just iterate through the
> endpoints in device.conf and configure them one at a time.
I currently use a simple solution to work around this problem where
i create the device.conf through an external process on the fly and specify my
devices and there dependencys in a yaml file, run them in order and just
check the exit code.
it looks something like this:
---
defaults:
scheme: sshios
port: 22
userinfo: foo:bar
query: crypt=true
cmd: /usr/bin/puppet device --verbose --environment=network
--detailed-exit-codes --deviceconfig={{DEVCFG}} || [ $? -eq 2 ]
devices:
dc1:
sw-dc1-01.foo.bar:
deps:
- *
sw-dc1-02.foo.bar:
sw-dc1-03.foo.bar:
deps:
- sw-dc1-02.foo.bar
str-dc1-01.foo.bar:
scheme: netapp
deps:
- sw-dc1-01.foo.bar
>
> I spent some time thinking about the current device command and how I might
> use it to configure workflows across multiple endpoints.
> - on the puppet master, keep a queue (or list) for each endpoint that needs
> to be configured
> - have an external process (the dispatcher) that keeps track of the
> configuration that needs to be applied (along with their endpoints) and
> stores the resources that represent that configuration into the correct
> queue for it's endpoint.
> - have an ENC that checks the certname of a device when it checks in, maps
> it to a queue, and clears all entries for a queue (for it to apply)
> - If the dispatcher keeps track of all of the resources that it put onto
> which queue, it can track the report for those devices to know when it's
> entire job is completed.
>
> The above explanation is the best way I could think of to use the existing
> device, but it is cumbersome enough that it warrants not using the device
> model.
>
> 2. it does not allow for the specification of dependencies between multiple
> device endpoints. It only allows for certain endpoints to be processed in a
> certain order.
>
> This is pretty much the same as #1, but worth mentioning separately.
>
> 3. It invents its own command line for doing things (it does not cleanly
> operate with puppet resource, puppet apply, puppet agent with represents a
> major loss of functionality)
>
> 4. Management of device.conf
>
> The existence of device.conf creates its own management issues. You need to
> assign a single node to a single device, you have to manage the process for
> getting the credentials to that device, you have to figure out how many
> devices/which devices go to which nodes as you scale out to a large number
> of device endpoints.
>
> *Solution:*
>
> The transport model (as created by Nan Liu) seems to get around the issues
> mentioned above and would allow a pretty clean integration path.
>
> For folks not familiar with the transport model. It uses regular types and
> providers that accept a parameter called transport that can be used to
> indicate that it should be applied against some remote endpoint.
>
> For example:
>
> Transport { 'ssh':
> url => some_url
> password => 'some_password'
> }
>
> port {
> transport => Transport[ssh]
> }
>
> This will work perfectly for my use case.
Can you point me to a thread where this was discussed ?
I can only see an advantage of the purposed model for certain
situations / device types but not for the traditional use case.
Thanks,
Markus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/20131212080840.GA30091%40nox-arch.uni-ak.ac.at.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
