[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Executing a file only on later passes
From: |
Wipf, Stefan |
Subject: |
Re: Executing a file only on later passes |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:01:13 -0600 |
We've disabled the second pass. I can't think of all the reasons
just now, but the ones that immediately come to mind are:
- Relying on the second pass to resolve hidden dependencies is
not reliable and just seems wrong.
- it obscures dependencies and can make an already complex
configuration very convoluted.
- Often order does matter. Sometimes things do not get done
unless the order is right
- Most importantly, there does not seem to be a real need for it.
There is nothing stopping us from explicitly forcing as many
passes as needed on a per action basis in in the action sequence.
This gives more refined control than to brute force a global
second pass.
Mark.Burgess@iu.hio.no wrote:
>
> Chip, John,
>
> The second pass is just like the next invocation of cfagent.
> Nothing will change by eliminating it except that the system will
> not be completely configured in a single iteration. The ordering
> of events is nothing to do with this. It just speeds up convergence
> for 90% of cases with hidden dependencies.
>
> > OK. It does cause things to sometimes (rarely) be executed in an
> > unexpected order, however. Life might be made easier if we made this a
> > bit more user-accessible; for example, define a 'laterpass' class (or
> > something similar) after the first pass is done. This would aid in
> > debugging (add a !laterpass condition and see if the problem persists
> > and the like) and allow for some clever hacks.
>
> The second pass is only used if there are classes defined that have
> restricted the first pass, leaving some potentially unexecuted actions
> that would not be possible to evaluate.
>
> If you want to control the order of things (which should not be
> necessary if you just trust the agent) then reorganize the
> input files. But who cares what the order is if it gets done?
>
> > This isn't a major problem, but it can be frustrating. No doubt this
> > frustration is exacerbated by a lack of grokking on my own part.
> >
>
> Yup. Whern things get complex they are hard to understand.
> M
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Work: +47 22453272 Email: Mark.Burgess@iu.hio.no
> Fax : +47 22453205 WWW : http://www.iu.hio.no/~mark
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-cfengine mailing list
> Help-cfengine@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark Burgess, 2003/11/03
- RE: Executing a file only on later passes, Wheeler, John, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark . Burgess, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Chip Seraphine, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark . Burgess, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes,
Wipf, Stefan <=
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark . Burgess, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Wipf, Stefan, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Chip Seraphine, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Eric Sorenson, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark . Burgess, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Chip Seraphine, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Mark . Burgess, 2003/11/03
- Re: Executing a file only on later passes, Chip Seraphine, 2003/11/03
RE: Executing a file only on later passes, Wheeler, John, 2003/11/03