On Monday, April 29, 2013 8:55:39 AM UTC-5, shyam sundar Keshari wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I have to configure puppet server in Primary-Secondary mode for 2
> distributed location .
>
> Site A is already running 1 Puppet server .Now I need to configure
> another puppet secondary server at site
- Original Message -
> From: "jcbollinger"
> To: puppet-users@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:39:52 PM
> Subject: [Puppet Users] Re: High Availability of Puppet server for separate
> geographical location
>
>
>
> On Monday, A
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:39:52 PM
> > Subject: [Puppet Users] Re: High Availability of Puppet server for
> separate geographical location
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, April 29, 2013 8:55:39 AM UTC-5, shyam sundar Keshari wrote:
> > >
> &g
On 9 May 2013 05:57, Felipe Salum wrote:
> Is Puppetlabs planning some easy solution for this ?
>
I run 12 puppet servers around the world. They work in a multiple puppet
master solution where any client from any location can work with any puppet
server in any location with dns_alt_names. We hav
-- Sent from my HP VeerOn May 8, 2013 19:58, John Warburton wrote: On 9 May 2013 05:57, Felipe Salum wrote:
Is Puppetlabs planning some easy solution for this ?I run 12 puppet servers around the world. They work in a multiple puppet master solution where any client from any loc
Yes it works perfectly, I run 2 puppet servers and one of them is the CA
using a CNAME as well for the puppet master/ca.
After it is set and working it is wonderful, however until you figure out
that you need to remove the ssldir, then run puppet with dns_alt_names,
then sign with dns_alt_names
On 9 May 2013 10:59, Felipe Salum wrote:
>
> Easy solution would be something that would be easier to setup, or maybe
> it is just me trying to complicate things. :)
>
> I suppose all HA solutions are difficult - they have to suit your site's
definition of HA and meet cost/complexity needs. Somet
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Warburton wrote:
> I suppose all HA solutions are difficult
Nah. A service correctly designed to be resilient can be HA with
trivial investment.
DNS is a good example. It may have blemishes but nobody stresses about
its availability. Setup as many tiers of r
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> I am writing some tooling for git+puppet (search for ppg in recent
> posts to this list), and it's trivial to add N-tiers of redundant
> servers...
Heh, so trivial in fact that you can use round-robin DNS and it'll just work :-)
I looked
On 5/9/2013 7:42 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Warburton wrote:
I suppose all HA solutions are difficult
Nah. A service correctly designed to be resilient can be HA with
trivial investment.
DNS is a good example. It may have blemishes but nobody stresses ab
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Ramin K wrote:
> Hubris, today thy name is Martin. :-)
Fair enough. I am happy about the tool I am writing (almost finished!)
but, as the followup post makes clear, it isn't about the designe of
ppg. It is about the design of git.
> I'd argue that people have stre
On 5/9/2013 1:51 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Ramin K wrote:
Hubris, today thy name is Martin. :-)
Fair enough. I am happy about the tool I am writing (almost finished!)
but, as the followup post makes clear, it isn't about the designe of
ppg. It is about the des
I'm trying to make a manifest to auto setup Puppet High Availability, but
it is the chicken-egg issue here. As for your secondary/tertiary/etc
puppetmasters, you need to copy the private key and certificate used by
your puppet1 server in order for it to accept the requests coming from
puppet.yourco
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Ramin K wrote:
> reasonably resilient or at least able to localize failure. Certainly some
> designs and technology are better than others, but implementation always
> matters.
Of course. I think we're saying the same thing, at the end of the day.
> Mast
On 10 May 2013 19:52, Ramin K wrote:
>
> In any case I'd like to see more discussion on highly available
> Puppet regardless of way it's implemented.
We are using SRV records for running multiple puppetmasters and selecting a
site local but allowing fallback to others in case it is down
We have a similar setup, minus the SRV records (although that looks quire
interesting, gotta get off of 2.7). And we push SVN checkouts instead of git,
but that's not a big difference.
I have been thinking about the CA, and how to make it more available. My first
thought is, do we have to save
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Erik Dalén wrote:
> We are using SRV records for running multiple puppetmasters and selecting a
> site local but allowing fallback to others in case it is down.
> We have 6 puppetmasters for the production environment running in this way
> currently. Each normally
If you don't need to backup your puppetca, how do you carry over to a
standby puppetca server your client signed certificates and revocation list
in case of failure in the production puppetca ?
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Mason Turner wrote:
> We have a similar setup, minus the SRV records
Hi ,
Thanks all for your knowledge sharing on mine Query .So after all I planned
to make Individual Puppet master for each locations .
Thanks Team
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Felipe Salum wrote:
> If you don't need to backup your puppetca, how do you carry over to a
> standby puppetca se
19 matches
Mail list logo