From: Drew Northup Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:50:19 GMT Subject: Re: looking for suggestions for managing a tree of server configs Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:57 AM, wrote: > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> david@lang.hm writes: >>> I've got a directory tree that holds config data for all my >>> servers. This consists of one directory per server (which is updated >>> periodically from what is currently configured on that server), plus >>> higher level summary reports and similar information. >>> >>> today I have just a single git tree covering everything, and I make a >>> commit each time one of the per-server directories is updated, and >>> again when the top-level stuff is created. >> >> It is quite clear to me what you are keeping at the top-level files, >> but if a large portion of the configuration for these servers are >> shared, it might not be a bad idea to have a canonical "gold-master" >> configuration branch, to which the shared updates are applied, with >> a branch per server that forks from that canonical branch to keep >> the machine specific tweaks as differences from the canonical stuff, >> instead of having N subdirectories (one per machine). > > In an ideal world yes, but right now these machines are updated by many > different tools (unforuntantly including 'vi'), so these directories aren't > the config to be pushed out to the boxes (i.e. what they should be), it's > instead an archived 'what is', the result of changes from all the tools. > > The systems are all built with a standard image, but the automation tools I > do have tend to push identical files out to many of the systems (or files > identical except for a couple of lines) David, Is there any particular reason you aren't using etckeeper? -- -Drew Northup -------------------------------------------------------------- "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59