General discussion about Chef

Re: mkfs and mdadm support


Chronological Thread 
  • From: snacktime <snacktime@gmail.com>
  • To: chef@lists.opscode.com
  • Subject: Re: mkfs and mdadm support
  • Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:33:56 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=x1kmk0Mdq0r2T+11ouWdoAMEtu2JhKf0GXvWiCIBM55WP2kODD7jEJbsP5i2clSVp3 OFP3IbXNkThBbban8BZK4JIwLvF+XzSOUokKrvZ2KttXnZhGCTMiO2eiIwdHQ+f9m2OU 5wSApvhJF5/1VweS9Xa30fp7OPDT2rEbANYmg=
Ya pardon my confusion about resources and providers.

So maybe there should be a top level filesystem resource that contain all of this.  Even after you add resources for mkfs, lvm, raid, etc.., you still need higher level logic to tie it all together, maybe a collection of definitions?

Chris



On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Arjuna Christensen <aj@opscode.com> wrote:
On 9/06/2009, at 11:30 AM, Miguel Cabeça wrote:

Hi,


I've got an ec2 recipe that uses the mount provider and my own custom code to handle mkfs and mdadm.  I'm going to add support directly to chef for these.  I'm thinking they should each be a provider on their own.  Thoughts?

Are you talking about a 'filesystem' resource with several providers (xfs, ext3, etc) and a 'raid' resource with some providers (mdadm, others?)

I agree, this should be split up into an abstraction resource such as raid or filesystem. I imagine an lvm2 provider would be awesome for the filesystem resource.

-- 
AJ Christensen, Software Engineer
Opscode, Inc.
E: aj@opscode.com



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

§