[chef] Re: Re: Re: Ruby for Chef

["John E. Vincent (lusis)" < >]

The most common issue seen on the list is couchdb tuning and breaking
the constituent parts out into distinct servers - couchbd on one
instance, rabbit on another, chef api server on another.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM,  
<
 >
 wrote:
> So what's the tipping point for chef-server requiring more baby-sitting?
>
> Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John E. Vincent (lusis)" 
> <
 >
> Sender: 
> 
 
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:49:42
> To: 
> <
 >
> Reply-To: 
> 
 
> Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Ruby for Chef
>
> I'll third the full-stack installer. There are (still?) some issues to
> be worked out around gem specific stuff (i.e. you manage ruby apps and
> you also use chef. Where does the gem package provider install the
> gem?) but I'm pretty damn impressed.
>
> If you can do it, I'd also suggest using the hosted platform for now
> and not shave the server yak just yet. Having said that, I had
> absolutely no problems installing the server on the current ubuntu
> LTS. If you treat the server as a turnkey service, then you don't get
> caught up in politics around distro choices. Management of it is
> fairly hands off anyway (at least till you get to a certain size).
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrea Campi
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Van Fossan,Randy 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>>> 1.        Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
>>> least 1.9.2-p290.
>>
>> I'll second Matt's reply, look into Full Stack Client.
>>
>> That said, we've been using Ruby 1.9.3-p0 for a while now, on a
>> variety of distros, with no problem whatsoever. It's also slightly
>> faster :)