On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Michael Jennings <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Monday, 07 December 2009, at 15:37:10 (+0100),
> devzero2000 wrote:
>> > Distributing system images with modest per-node customization tends to be
>> > simpler than per-node package management. Package management is useful for
>> > constructing the system images. But PM cannot compete with system images
>> > for installation scaling to multiple nodes.
>> First of all, thanks for your reply. But i disagree on this point : it
>> would be like saying that cloning is more useful than using conga and
>> puppet (or kickstart FWIW) and here I disagree.
> No, Jeff is 100% right here. Package management simply doesn't
> scale. The correct way to scale is to keep the two separate:
> Package-manage an image, and scalably propogate that image.
> And to be frank, anyone using a configuration management tool like
> puppet as their cluster manager is not someone you want to hire as
> your cluster admin. :-)
>> But THIS make it useless or worse, the role of a package managemement
>> system, let it call call RPM5 or other.
>> Are you sure ?
> Again, unless you're managing a centralized image and pushing out the
> changes in some automated fashion, your technique simply will not
> scale. A 1-to-n rpmdb scheme, likewise, does not scale. What scales
> is eliminating the n, or at least keeping it in the single digits. If
> you have more than a handful of RPMDB's (i.e., node images), you've
> already lost the game.
>> It is an opinion. Security system patch are DAILY.
> If deploying system updates daily is becoming problematic for you,
> your cluster management technique is the culprit, not your package
>> As I replied, your answer seems to reiterate that a package
>> management system is not useful in HPC ENVIRONMENT. But I do not
>> agree. These is because a package management system involves, or is
>> a necessary substrate, for software distribution and patch
>> management. But the your last reply it is interesting, although it
>> deserves further investigation.
> A package management system is useful in HPC. Trying to turn a
> package management system into a cluster management system is not
> useful in HPC.
This is your, informed, opinion. That i respect. But not for this i
have agree: but let me
see as the time go on.
>> HPC, HA, shared storage and RPM probably require further reflection.
>> IMHO they are not been mentioned in the past is probably due to the
>> fact that many applications (user application not system) are
>> installed manually and they have not considered the benefits to use
>> a package management system for their applications
> I don't think you understand how egotistical that sounds, and I'm sure
> you didn't mean it that way. But MANY people have given great
> consideration to the problem of managing packages and software
> installation on clusters. If they're not using the tool you think
> they should be using, rather than assuming it's because they don't
> know any better, instead ponder if perhaps there might be a very good
I know exactly why: They do not want or want to know how to make rpm
proprietary applications (or open source, BTW ). I know exactly how
many organizations prioritize the manual approach to systems
management (perhaps ITIL tell something in this regard, perhaps the
SOX compliance policy tell also something : perhaps it is something
like "HAVE YOUR WAY" ) . The problem is in general, rpm or not, HPC or
not. I have used to doing package in the pkg management system (System
V or Solaris if you are more young of me) in the 1995 . But NOONE care
besides my self : HE, i am very lazy - i am not like chaos. Anyway,
this post will be further confirm that it is a good thing not to use
a package management system for applications and move towards chaos:
many people love the chaos, I will not because life is too short ...
YMMV, as everyone else. And NOT : I don't want this fun.
Received on Mon Dec 7 22:31:16 2009