On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:36:17 Devin Reade wrote: > --On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 11:02:42 PM -0700 RC <cooleyr at gmail.com> > > wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:07:06 -0600 Devin Reade <gdr at gno.org> wrote: > >> It should be considered as complementing the automated config > >> management tools like cfengine et al, not as a replacement for > >> them (they're doing different jobs). > > > > That's not entirely fair. A little shell scripting and pdsh and pdcp > > can certainly do everything cfengine/puppet can do > > I wasn't referring to pdsh/pdcp; I was referring to pconsole. The > reason I said complementing is that sometimes it is good to have > stuff under a configuration management system like cfengine/puppet, > but sometimes you need to run ad-hoc commands, in an identical > fashion, on lots of similar machines, which pconsole is good at > (subject to the caveats I previously mentioned). > > I made no comments on pdsh/pdcp at all, and make no claims on where > it fits in the spectrum. > > Devin > You can actually achieve the same functionality of pdsh/pdcp and pconsole with a quite simple bash script :) http://multy-command.sourceforge.net/ I think it is a matter of what the admin will prefer to do. When you have a lot of identical machines, sometimes it is better to have cfengine/puppet, but sometimes it just an overkill to use them if you are the only one administrating those machines. cfengine and puppet have a very good place on machines that are administered by a team of people. But solutions like pdsh/pconsole and multy-command, in my opinion are more suitable when there are only one or two guys administering those machines. Marian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110722/7a3bb998/attachment-0004.sig>