[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bootstrapping

From: Nate Campi
Subject: Re: Bootstrapping
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:44:15 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:50:28PM -0800, John Sechrest wrote:
> Nate Campi <address@hidden> writes:
>  % A surprising amount of configuration could be shared across sites,
>  % enabling networks to get up quickly, and run better. Consultants could
>  % come into networks they've never been on before, but quickly solve
>  % problems and roll out new services, since he/she already understands the
>  % cfengine setup.


>  Right now, I am using Files to simulate what I need to get
>  as I reach thru all of this stuff.
>  Like:
>       TrustedKeyFrom = ( Readfile(/var/mln/trustedhosts,1000))
>  instead of saying
>       TrustedKeyFrom = ( My list of hosts goes here)
>  In this way, I should be able to mail to you a cf.XXX file and
>  you should be able to put it into use.
>  Mark mentions that there are CFengine Packages that can be built
>  which end up with seperate name spaces, so that sharing 
>  files does not lead to collisions in the name spaces of the classes.

Good work.

>  % This is what I'd want the community-contributed cfengine configs to come
>  % from - actual use, practices proven on real networks. It would need to
>  % be it's own project, with active contributers. I plan on starting it on
>  % my own, then seeing if people want to join in once I have something
>  % working to get at least a small network up from scratch. It would
>  % probably need to be a custom debian distro on a CD, to bootstrap the
>  % whole process from a gold server.
>  This brings up many questions for me...
>  A) Why would this not work as a component of the CFengine work that
>     is already going on?

Well I suppose I mean separate mailing list, so as not to bother this

>  C) Do you care that there already is an ongoing project working
>     on the same issue? (We got our sourceforge project approved recently)

Cool. I thought hard about going exactly the way you're going, with
UML's, right in line with the "utility computing" buzzword being slung
around a lot in the press and vendor marketing materials.

I decided against it, since we can make configuration of real hosts
almost as easy, and get all their performance. I have a surprising
number of hosts lacking on CPU, DISK and memory resources, mostly mail
servers. I need every last ounce of capacity out of a lot of my hosts.
There are very expensive and modern hardware platforms, it's just that
we have large clusters of mail and web servers that work very, very

"To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence." - Samuel 

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]