[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ctime vs checksum in copies
RE: ctime vs checksum in copies
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:51:23 -0500
If you copy the template over using a checksum to the temp area it would
only be copied when the template on the master changed. That is how I
currently do it.
From: Paul Krizak [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:20 PM
To: Nielsen, Steve
Subject: Re: ctime vs checksum in copies
That's a fairly nifty approach, though it doesn't address the core issue
of having to pull the master template off the server every time cfagent
runs. This isn't a big deal for 100-1000 hosts, but within 12 months
I'll be dealing with around 10,000 hosts, and doing something like
copying a 20k file once an hour (or even once a day) can do suprising
things to the network (like bring down filers)
I'm trying to plan ahead so that as our network grows, the amount of
network/CPU bandwidth required to keep the systems up to date stays
about the same or even goes down.
Paul Krizak 5900 E. Ben White Blvd. MS 625
Advanced Micro Devices Austin, TX 78741
Linux/Unix Systems Engineering Phone: (512) 602-8775
Microprocessor Solutions Sector
Nielsen, Steve wrote:
> Generally I have this approach:
> - copy the template over to a "temp area" (i.e. /var/cfengine/temp)
> - do file edits on the temporary copy
> - compare the temp copy to the production and copy if changed (using
> This has worked really well for me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf
> Of Paul Krizak
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:14 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: ctime vs checksum in copies
> I've got a question about what you guys think the best solution is in
> this situation.
> I've got some files that must be customized on a per-host basis, but
> based on a common "root" file. My goal is to have the following
> * When the system is first installed, or if the file on the system is
> wildly different than the master, a copy: statement pulls down a fresh
> copy of the file, which an edifiles: stanza corrects for that specific
> * Later, if the master file changes, the clients should "know" to pull
> down a new copy of the file, and then perform the same editfiles:
> Using "checksum" for the copy statement doesn't really work, since
> you make a change to the file using editfiles:, the checksums don't
> match and thus the file gets copied every time. On the upside, you're
> guaranteed to always have the correct version of the file on the
> Using "ctime" for the copy statement *sounds* good, as the copy only
> happens when the "master" file updates on the server. Where this
> flat, however, is on freshly installed systems, where the ctime of the
> *incorrect*, freshly-installed file is *later* than the ctime of the
> "master" file. In this situation, the "master" file is not copied
> I wouldn't expect it to).
> I've got several cases in my (very lengthy) cfengine config where I
> into this type of issue. For small files, I can put the entire
> of the file into an editfiles: block and avoid using copy: at all.
> doesn't work for large files, however, as I don't want a cf.* file to
> have a 5,000-line config file in it with Append statements.
> For large files, I use checksum copies and just accept the fact that
> they will get copied every time cfagent runs.
> I'm looking to improve convergence in my config files...anybody else
> have clever workarounds for this problem?