Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Dan Farrell wrote: hmm... network booting? network mounting? install packages once on one system, share them with everyone. Share passwd/shadow files and the like manually, or symlink them to skeletal versions symlinked to somewhere that can be obscured and replaced by a network boot. you could even boot them from thumb drives or cds. of course, it would be a good bit of work to configure initially, and might not go whithout a hitch. For configuration, you may want to look at something like puppet to manage that. Your build machine would the puppetmaster and keep the other machines' configs up-to-date. -- A
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:57:48 +0100 Neil Bothwick wrote: > Dealing with unexpected side > effects of syncing in-use files could be a lot more problematic. perhaps a digest of some kind? md5 the files, write up a little script to keep the rest of the nodes synced up?
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:07:14 +0200 (CEST) Helmut Jarausch wrote: > Hi, > > I have 4 identical machines, they only differ in the 2 files > /etc/conf.d/hostname > /etc/conf.d/net > > I'd like to maintain only one of them (updating > GenToo upto several times a week) > and 'rsync' the other ones. hmm... network booting? network mounting? install packages once on one system, share them with everyone. Share passwd/shadow files and the like manually, or symlink them to skeletal versions symlinked to somewhere that can be obscured and replaced by a network boot. you could even boot them from thumb drives or cds. of course, it would be a good bit of work to configure initially, and might not go whithout a hitch.
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:46:17 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote: > No, on the 'master' machine I have in /etc/make.conf > FEATURES="buildpkg -stricter" > > and on the clones I use '-k'. > > But still, portage checks dependencies on the clone. > And, if it sees a problem (like those when upgrading to kde-4 > or qt-4.5.x) it refused to merge the binary package. Those sort of blocks, such as when switching from monolithic to split ebuilds, are rare and easily dealt with. Dealing with unexpected side effects of syncing in-use files could be a lot more problematic. -- Neil Bothwick All mail what i send is thoughly proof-red, definately! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On 31 Jul, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:59:02 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote: > >> I've done so in the past but I've made bad experience. >> Unfortunately portage isn't so clever, yet. > > portage is a lot cleverer than it used to be, especially with regard to > blocks. Yes, I'm using portage-2.2_rc33 but still ... > >> Many times (on the 'clones', as well) I had to block packages before >> emerge and then unblock again. I even had to unmerge some packages >> temporarily and emerge them later on again. > > It sounds like you were using -K rather than -k or trying to build binary > packages with --buildpkgonly, which is doomed to failure when trying to > build dependent packages. No, on the 'master' machine I have in /etc/make.conf FEATURES="buildpkg -stricter" and on the clones I use '-k'. But still, portage checks dependencies on the clone. And, if it sees a problem (like those when upgrading to kde-4 or qt-4.5.x) it refused to merge the binary package. Helmut. -- Helmut Jarausch Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik RWTH - Aachen University D 52056 Aachen, Germany
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:59:02 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote: > I've done so in the past but I've made bad experience. > Unfortunately portage isn't so clever, yet. portage is a lot cleverer than it used to be, especially with regard to blocks. > Many times (on the 'clones', as well) I had to block packages before > emerge and then unblock again. I even had to unmerge some packages > temporarily and emerge them later on again. It sounds like you were using -K rather than -k or trying to build binary packages with --buildpkgonly, which is doomed to failure when trying to build dependent packages. -- Neil Bothwick Maybe... How much are you bribing me this time? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:07:14 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote: > I have 4 identical machines, they only differ in the 2 files > /etc/conf.d/hostname > /etc/conf.d/net > > I'd like to maintain only one of them (updating > GenToo upto several times a week) > and 'rsync' the other ones. > > Now, rsync'ing a life root filesystem is risky. > I don't see any problems for the FS holding /usr. The whole idea sounds a little risky. I'd use binary packages to keep the other machines up to date. Set FEATURES="buildpkg" in make.conf on each computer and set PKGDIR to a directory accessible by all over NFS. Run your normal emerge -u --whatever world on the first then run the same with -k on the others. That way they all get the same updates but only the first has to compile them. I'd also set up distcc to reduce compile times, but that's a separate step. -- Neil Bothwick Very funny Scotty.. now beam down my pants! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] maintaining clones
On 31 Jul, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:07:14 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote: > >> I have 4 identical machines, they only differ in the 2 files >> /etc/conf.d/hostname >> /etc/conf.d/net >> >> I'd like to maintain only one of them (updating >> GenToo upto several times a week) >> and 'rsync' the other ones. >> >> Now, rsync'ing a life root filesystem is risky. >> I don't see any problems for the FS holding /usr. > > The whole idea sounds a little risky. I'd use binary packages to keep the > other machines up to date. Set FEATURES="buildpkg" in make.conf on each > computer and set PKGDIR to a directory accessible by all over NFS. Run > your normal emerge -u --whatever world on the first then run the same > with -k on the others. That way they all get the same updates but only > the first has to compile them. > > I'd also set up distcc to reduce compile times, but that's a separate > step. > Thanks for your help! I've done so in the past but I've made bad experience. Unfortunately portage isn't so clever, yet. Many times (on the 'clones', as well) I had to block packages before emerge and then unblock again. I even had to unmerge some packages temporarily and emerge them later on again. Sometime I have to patch an ebuild file (temporarily) and so on. And let alone updating baselayout. So, it would be much easier if I could simulate cloning the machines each day. Helmut. -- Helmut Jarausch Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik RWTH - Aachen University D 52056 Aachen, Germany
[gentoo-user] maintaining clones
Hi, I have 4 identical machines, they only differ in the 2 files /etc/conf.d/hostname /etc/conf.d/net I'd like to maintain only one of them (updating GenToo upto several times a week) and 'rsync' the other ones. Now, rsync'ing a life root filesystem is risky. I don't see any problems for the FS holding /usr. The question is, which directories (files) are effected by an 'emerge' operation and which of these do need rsyncing? E.g. /var/tmp doesn't need to be synchronized while (probably) /var/lib does. Many thanks for your help, Helmut. -- Helmut Jarausch Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik RWTH - Aachen University D 52056 Aachen, Germany
