Re: git with large files...

From: Nick <oinksocket@letterboxes.org>
Date: Jul 21, 2012, 21:04 UTC
Message-ID: <500B1974.5070508@letterboxes.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACPiFCLTPi5i3RZHwOD-+OJ_zSbtOwe7VLy=NMO1MUKPVyPHEw@mail.gmail.com>

On 21/07/12 15:42, Martin Langhoff wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, many folks use puppet in serverless configuration pushing the
>> manifest from a central git server via cron and applying locally the
>> configuration fetched. In this sense git IS used for deployement. And,
>> for a configuration management system as puppet this could be a
>> sensible thing to do - reduce load, scalability ecc.
> 
> That's a great thing to know, and timely too. I am looking at Puppet,
> and worried a bit about reported memory load on the server side (and
> some rumours of memory footprint issues on the client side too).
> 
> Can you point me to more information & discussion?

We use "masterless" puppet, deployed using gitolite post-receive hooks. The most useful clues I found are here.

 http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/ed9a4032b31bd8d4/e1a68aa8ea91305d

 http://semicomplete.com/presentations/puppet-at-loggly/puppet-at-loggly.pdf.html

 http://current.workingdirectory.net/posts/2011/puppet-without-masters/

 http://bitfieldconsulting.com/scaling-puppet-with-distributed-version-control

We had to join the dots ourselves. Works for us so far, but it's only about six months old. We don't have lots of servers or very exacting requirements, just a inclination against the pull orthodoxy and the freedom to experiment. Can't comment about memory footprint, except it's not been a problem for us. (On the other hand I am not that enamoured with Puppet's DSL design, I might prefer to avoid it if I could.)