Just a few comments:
From what I understand, the python code won't really be "hackable", at
least not in a useful way -- I think the deployment details are largely
(entirely?) embedded in the XML. Can someone confirm or deny this?
The lack of good XML handling tools for command line scripting will
limit the (flex-)ability of sys admins to customise and "rescript"
deployment. Also, the structure and capabilities of the XML format
will, I imagine, limit this. I should say, I think XML is great, but
working with it in scripts is still quite difficult.
Be thankful Quattor is now using XML! I understand many months were
spent with yacc and bison developing a custom deployment/installation
description language and corresponding C-parser.
Finally, has anyone stepped back and said "It shouldn't be this
complicated"? I constantly think to a few years down the road where
(presumably) there will be lots of large clusters, in essentially
continuous usage, and there will be continuous hardware replacement.
Clusters will be full of "ever-so-slightly" to "quite-dramatically"
different worker nodes. I can't imagine it will be possible to do
"global" grid re-deployments of all software, so multiple software
versions (of the grid middleware) will *have* to co-exist. Sys admins
will just have to get on with maintaining their own sites with their own
techniques and to the best of their ability and resource. Does Quattor
make this easier or harder? Is it an "all or nothing"
installation/deployment manager like LCFGng?
Cheers,
Ian
|