Luke Kanies a écrit :
Better to show an example.
Here is our fileserver.conf
[global]
path /etc/puppet/production/files/global
allow *.mydomain
[domain]
path /etc/puppet/production/files/%d/domain
allow *.mydomain
[node]
path /etc/puppet/production/files/%d/nodes/%h
allow *.mydomai
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Brice Figureau
wrote:
> On 06/07/12 18:44, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
>> No, Puppet uses a lot of RPC to ask for each metadata of each file it has to
>> take care from the catalog. Most of the
>> time, 95 % of your file are already up to date. They do not have cha
Le 06/07/2012 20:29, Brice Figureau a écrit :
The counterpart is that your compilation will now take ages (ie you'll
have to compute those checksums during compilation). Your clients might
timeout.
That's how static compiler works.
I agree that more computation should be done at catalog compilat
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:44 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 06/07/2012 18:27, Luke Kanies a écrit :
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
>>
>>> Le 06/07/2012 18:07, Luke Kanies a écrit :
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 05/07/2012 19:00,
On 06/07/12 18:44, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 06/07/2012 18:27, Luke Kanies a écrit :
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
>>
>>> Le 06/07/2012 18:07, Luke Kanies a écrit :
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pitt
On 06/07/12 18:58, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>
>>
>>> By moving a couple of things around I think we can cache those
>>> calls instead of needing to keep the cache of not found types.
>>> We'll keep you posted on what we come up with.
>>
>> Thank
On Jul 6, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>
>> By moving a couple of things around I think we can cache those calls
>> instead of needing to keep the cache of not found types. We'll keep
>> you posted on what we come up with.
>
> Thanks, I'm looking forward to that!
Brice, maybe you ca
Le 06/07/2012 18:27, Luke Kanies a écrit :
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
Le 06/07/2012 18:07, Luke Kanies a écrit :
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pittman a écrit :
That would ... probably not show a lot of short-ter
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:24 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 06/07/2012 18:07, Luke Kanies a écrit :
>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
>>
>>> Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pittman a écrit :
That would ... probably not show a lot of short-term performance gain
for you.
Le 06/07/2012 18:07, Luke Kanies a écrit :
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pittman a écrit :
That would ... probably not show a lot of short-term performance gain
for you. The static compiler,
We tested (and proposed some fixes (pull request
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:40 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pittman a écrit :
>>
>> That would ... probably not show a lot of short-term performance gain
>> for you. The static compiler,
>>
> We tested (and proposed some fixes (pull request #769)) and that looks
> inter
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 17:11 -0700, Andrew Parker wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Absolutely agree. Andy and team are working hard on exactly this.
> >
> > That's really good. I'm going to try to profile one of my largest node
> > agent (in noop mode) to se
Le 05/07/2012 19:00, Daniel Pittman a écrit :
That would ... probably not show a lot of short-term performance gain
for you. The static compiler,
We tested (and proposed some fixes (pull request #769)) and that looks interesting but static compiler as some bad side
effect which are removing s
On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely agree. Andy and team are working hard on exactly this.
>
> That's really good. I'm going to try to profile one of my largest node
> agent (in noop mode) to see what it gives. This might point to some part
> of the code that we
On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
> On 05/07/12 19:01, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Luke Kanies
>> wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>>>
As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right
now. Initially
On 05/07/12 19:01, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Luke Kanies
> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>>
>>> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right
>>> now. Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably
>>> move o
On 05/07/12 18:56, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
>> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right
>> now. Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably
>> move on to back porting and tuning a bit on 2.7 after we have 3.0
>> s
Le 05/07/2012 18:56, Luke Kanies a écrit :
I agree that parallelization might make a big difference, but it has the chance
to be a world of hurt, too. Threading in general is hard, threading in ruby is
ridiculous, and threading around operations on the system whose interactions
you can't pred
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
>> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right now.
>> Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably move on to back
>> porting and tuning a bit on 2.7 after w
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:28 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien
wrote:
> Le 04/07/2012 19:29, Brice Figureau a écrit :
>
>> Fixing #2198 [1] would be a very good start, then parallelize
>> non-dependent sub-trees. In a word, that's not easy.
>
> I know that's would the *true* way to speed up puppet agent. But
On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right now.
>> Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably move on to back
>> porting and tuning a bit on 2.7 after
On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right now.
> Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably move on to back
> porting and tuning a bit on 2.7 after we have 3.0 stabilized. At the same
> time we have been ta
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
> As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right now.
> Initially we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably move on to back
> porting and tuning a bit on 2.7 after we have 3.0 stabilized. At the same
> time we have bee
As Deepak said, we are taking a look over Brice's patches right now. Initially
we'll target them at 3.0 and then we'll probably move on to back porting and
tuning a bit on 2.7 after we have 3.0 stabilized. At the same time we have been
taking a look at the catalog retrieval time problem. Based o
Le 04/07/2012 19:29, Brice Figureau a écrit :
Fixing #2198 [1] would be a very good start, then parallelize
non-dependent sub-trees. In a word, that's not easy.
I know that's would the *true* way to speed up puppet agent. But, as you said, I think this is far from trivial. But I
do not enough of
Brice Figureau wrote:
> What I know for sure, is that the patch seems to work, but I really
> didn't test it enough to be confident there are no side-effects. Since
> the patch is small, it is quite easy to understand it. The only way I
> can see it fail is to prevent some manifests changes to be p
On 04/07/12 17:46, Deepak Giridharagopal wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:18 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
>> Le 03/07/2012 17:16, Ken Barber a écrit :
>>> +3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull
>>> wrote:
Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>>
On 04/07/12 13:42, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 04/07/2012 13:06, Brice Figureau a écrit :
>>
>> Well, you could try those on your (test) cluster and report back what it
>> gave (only the master needs to be actually updated) :)
> We did and it works fine, but, as you said, this is our test cluste
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:18 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 03/07/2012 17:16, Ken Barber a écrit :
> > +3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
> > > Nigel Kersten wrote:
> > > > You're awesome Brice. :)
> > >
> > > +2!
> >
Hello,
We've been running just this patch (in an environment where everything
is in autoloadable modules format, but there are quite a lot of custom
types) for 24 hours now. We have maintained no timeouts on manifest
compilation, where we used to time out approximately 5-10% of clients.
Average
Le 04/07/2012 13:06, Brice Figureau a écrit :
Well, you could try those on your (test) cluster and report back what it
gave (only the master needs to be actually updated) :)
We did and it works fine, but, as you said, this is our test cluster and it is
not so representative.
And all your expla
Brice Figureau a écrit :
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 12:18 +0200, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
Le 03/07/2012 17:16, Ken Barber a écrit :
+3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
Nigel Kersten wrote:
You're awesome Brice. :)
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 12:18 +0200, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Le 03/07/2012 17:16, Ken Barber a écrit :
> > +3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
> >> Nigel Kersten wrote:
> >>> You're awesome Brice. :)
> >> +2!
> >>
> >> James
> >>
Le 03/07/2012 17:16, Ken Barber a écrit :
+3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
Nigel Kersten wrote:
You're awesome Brice. :)
+2!
James
If everybody is so exited with those patches, could we expected to see them
integrated in 2.7.x
+3 your my new personal hero Brice :-).
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, James Turnbull wrote:
> Nigel Kersten wrote:
>>> Those patches are not ready for general consumption and upstream merging
>>> (that's why I didn't publish a pull request), but I'd appreciate any
>>> feedback and tests on othe
Nigel Kersten wrote:
>> Those patches are not ready for general consumption and upstream merging
>> (that's why I didn't publish a pull request), but I'd appreciate any
>> feedback and tests on other sets of manifests to see the potential gains.
>> My idea was to help PL dev team to produce a more
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Brice Figureau
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm proud to release a set of unofficial and certainly unstable (in
> various ways) patches against both 2.7.x and 3.0.x to improve the
> performance of the puppet compiler (and only the compiler).
>
> Warning: I never tried to use th
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 14:00 +0200, Brice Figureau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm proud to release a set of unofficial and certainly unstable (in
> various ways) patches against both 2.7.x and 3.0.x to improve the
> performance of the puppet compiler (and only the compiler).
I know it's a bit early to
Hi,
I'm proud to release a set of unofficial and certainly unstable (in
various ways) patches against both 2.7.x and 3.0.x to improve the
performance of the puppet compiler (and only the compiler).
Warning: I never tried to use those patches in production. Also those
patches are almost not covere
39 matches
Mail list logo
