Re: what to do w/ hosts
Will Partain <[email protected]> Sun, 17 Mar 2002 20:16:44 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.sysutils.ark.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel H writes: > Ark seems to have a bunch of code in it oriented at > doing "push" style infrastructure admining. A lot of the > problems you seem to be having seem to stem from this > world view. ... Hi, thanks for a useful interjection :-) You're right, there is a lot of such code, but I would like to think that simply reflects how we happened to want to do some stuff. You could do ARK entirely without it. At the ARK engine level (more basic), I would hope that (on host 'foo') that ark package do-it --hosts=bar wibble is 'push' (assuming 'wibble' is a non-proxied method) and that ark package do-it --hosts=. wibble is effectively 'pull'. That is, at the "engine level", you can be either push or pull; we don't legislate (and my instinct is *not* to). On the practical Sidai packages side, my goal has been to have all methods up to 'install' (grab the source, compile, ... 'make install') be "push"-style methods [because you do them on a once-only ad-hoc basis], and the deploy (get it on a host) and reveal (show to users) methods would be "pull"-style, probably re-run out of a cron job every night. Something like that. Alternatively (and mimicking what Tobias Oetiker did [see his LISA 2001 paper]): instead of *doing* the deploy/reveal steps, generate the cfengine config to do it. Then let cfengine watch over things. [This mini-project is on the back-burner for lack of time currently.] Following on from... > The problem of "where does this code run" is completely > different under pull style infrastructure. ... I wonder what an ARK world would look like if we made "push"-style operation simply impossible/inexpressible? How would we do something like Jonathan's routers, or a not-a-proper-computer NetApp filer? ark router tip-me-over-gently ALL (This is kinda the opposite of "pull"-only -- it's "I don't want to ever run ARK stuff directly on this box, ever".) My suspicion in all of this is that there's a nice conceptual breakthrough, maybe not huge, just lurking *right there* in the bushes... and if we can just see it... Many thanks to all who are chipping in! Will