On Thursday, October 9, 2014 3:10:55 PM UTC-7, John Bollinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 9, 2014 9:12:41 AM UTC-5, Felix Frank wrote:
>>
>> So in response to Andy's request for a pick, I feel that making packages
>> non-isomorphic and allow namevar != title would be a fair compromise.
>
Hi,
As you may know a memory leak was found in 3.7 (PUP-3345) and it seems
like we found the cause of the problem. (YAY !!!)
In order to find the leak, I came up with some (rough) tools to help
detect leakage. Below are some tips if you want to use them. But first,
the cause.
Basically, the
So I ran the script:
Do you wish to continue and have the script generate a
/var/log/puppet/profile.yml file?
[Y/n]: Y
Script canceled by user.
It works with 'y', just not 'Y', which is a bit stupid. I realise that Y
just means "I default to y" but the capitalisation shouldn't matter :).
--
Y
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:39 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> This is interesting, am working on a talk about profiling catalog compiles
> - what tool
> did you use to generate the report?
>
>
The data is from --profile on a master. I wrote a little script on saturday
that I used to generate the attache
This is interesting, am working on a talk about profiling catalog compiles -
what tool
did you use to generate the report?
- Original Message -
> From: "Andy Parker"
> To: "puppet-dev"
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 6:08:22 PM
> Subject: [Puppet-dev] Some analysis of profiling informa
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Bruce Downs wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:56:12 PM UTC-6, Kylo Ginsberg wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Andy Parker
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ** Next PR Triage Wednesday, October 15th @ 10:00 am Pacific. **
>>>
>>> *Priorities*
>>>
>>>1. Pu
Last week we got our first bit of data from profiling someone's master.
There were three different masters profiled and over the weekend I analyzed
one of them. Here are the results of that analsys:
=
8 processors
~18 hour time period (Wed Oct 0
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:56:12 PM UTC-6, Kylo Ginsberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Andy Parker > wrote:
>
>> ** Next PR Triage Wednesday, October 15th @ 10:00 am Pacific. **
>>
>> *Priorities*
>>
>>1. Puppet 3.7.2
>>2. CFacter on the march
>>3. New puppet doc im
>
> Whether such an alternative type is called "Secondary_package" or
> "Module" or "Software", or whether there are several ("Gem", "Pip", "Cpan",
> ...) is very much a secondary concern to me.
>
> John
>
>
Perfect. I understand what you're saying and I agree.
--
You received this message b
On Friday, October 10, 2014 8:31:30 AM UTC-5, Drew Blessing wrote:
>
> I greatly favor anything else over making Package non-isomorphic.
>>
>>
> I completely appreciate what you're saying. However, I don't think this
> was the intent of the provider abstraction. It was intended to make the
> O
> (where all environments were promoted to 'production' if they weren't
configured in puppet's configuration)
What do you mean here, exactly?
> however the current design I'm thinking could benefit from it.
Can you give a rationale / use case that would benefit from this? As you
present it now
I understand the evils of the environment fallback that was previously in
puppet (where all environments were promoted to 'production' if they
weren't configured in puppet's configuration), however the current design
I'm thinking could benefit from it.
Would it be sensible to be able to restore
12 matches
Mail list logo
