Am 23.04.2012 18:48 schrieb "Jay Feldblum" <
">
>:
>
> In the sphere of applications, we often have a codebase and a database. Only the code is stored in source control. None of the data is stored in source control, but we safeguard the data by taking frequent backups.
>
> One approach to using Chef, an approach paralleling applications, is as follows. Cookbooks are always code. Nodes and data-bags are always data. Some roles and environments qualify as code and some qualify as data; this varies from role to role and from environment to environment. Keep cookbooks and the code-ish roles and environments in source control; write code-ish roles and environments in Ruby. Keep node and data-bag data, along with the data-ish roles and environments, out of source control and left to the database; write data-ish roles and environments in JSON. To safeguard the data, take frequent backups of the database.
>
Can you give an example of code-ish vs. data-ish roles/environments/databags?
For me all of them qualify as "code" because they are represented as text and have the benefit that they can be easily version controlled, diffed and merged.
> What are people's thoughts on this way of using Chef?
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Juanje Ojeda Croissier <
">
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Torben
>>
>> I think Spiceweasel could be a good idea to track all those changes:
>> http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Spiceweasel
>>
>> Still it doesn't sync with your real infrastructure, but it is easy to
>> keep updated and is a good picture of your infrastructure-as-code.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2012/4/23 Torben Knerr <
">
>:
>> > @AJ: how do you keep track of modifications to nodes, e.g. who added a new
>> > role or cookbook? Does Chef Server keep track of that?
>> >
>> > I was thinking that infrastructure-as-code wise one would keep the nodes in
>> > source control as well, as I would do for databags (and I see good reasons
>> > for doing that). Is this just a matter of taste or did I miss something?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Torben
>> >
>> > Am 23.04.2012 10:59 schrieb "AJ Christensen" <
">
>:
>> >
>> >> I don't keep these. We only store them for backups when deleting
>> >> nodes, in the event that some data required for recovery is persisted
>> >> to node data.
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't recommend the overhead of ensuring nodes are synchronized
>> >> from server to disk and back, but perhaps a tool could be built for it
>> >> (jenkins?)
>> >>
>> >> Embrace chaos, destroy nodes regularly -- build for failure.
>> >>
>> >> --AJ
>> >>
>> >> 2012/4/23 Motiejus Jakštys <
">
>:
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:36, Torben Knerr <
">
> wrote:
>> >> >> Ohai Chefs,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But where do you keep these files? I was considering to put them under
>> >> >> chef-repo/nodes as the chef-repo git repo seems to be the right place
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> me. But since there is no such directory in the default chef-repo
>> >> >> structure
>> >> >> I was wondering if you guys know a better place for it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I am using this directory for this purpose.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Motiejus Jakštys
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Juanje
>>
>> http://about.me/juanje
>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.