whirr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Wilson <fajwil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Whirr: No web container 'services'
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:51:29 GMT

I haven't seen much written about the relative strength and weaknesses
of whirr vs puppet and chef.

You mention whirr is better for complex services. What is it about
Cassandra (for instance) that makes it easier to use whirr for setup
than puppet or chef?

I have a bit of experience with Puppet and what I found that was
configuring heterogeneous services consistently (say yum and squid
proxying) in a consistent way (so that yum actually uses the proxy)
somewhat challenging. My memory is a bit hazy on the specifics but I
remember wanting to define common 'resources' for multiple services
and this requiring 'virtual' resources to achieve this. Puppet's
abstractions or language were not helpful. Inevitably there was some
'denormalisation' in the configuration, with it being the sysadmin's
responsibility to keep that configuration consistent. You also got a
sense that Puppet modules were never truely 'modular', they always had
some affinity to another piece of software that the author wanted to
integrate with.

Does Whirr make working with heterogeneous (but cooperating) services easier?

Looking further I am looking at using Whirr to standup services in
MuleESB and load testing them Gatling tests also deployed with Whirr,
perhaps controlled by ZooKeeper. Does this sound like a good fit? I
have so far succeeded in deploying a simple Mule application with its
container to Amazon EC2 using Whirr. Maybe I am just more comfortable
with Java but I found implementing this with Whirr much more
straightforward than getting started with Mule. (Consider also that
puppet has epic amounts of documentation and blogs and yet somehow it
easier for me to learn Whirr!)

Although I was able to standup Mule with a simple hello world
application with Whirr, the strategy for managing the Mule
applications is not very clear to me right now. Maybe there is some
feature of Puppet that I have overlooked.


On 18 February 2014 11:26, Werner Buck <email@wernerbuck.nl> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> In my experience, I found that if the service is not that complex, it is
> easier to use the configuration management services like puppet / chef in
> nodeless / solo mode to handle what you want.
> Kind regards,
> Werner Buck
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Frank Wilson <fajwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Why are there no 'services' defined for web containers such as Apache
>> Tomcat? I think it would be quite easy to write one but I am wondering
>> why one has not been created. Is there something in Apache Whirr that
>> I haven't noticed that makes it unsuitable for managing web
>> containers?
>> Thanks,
>> Frank

View raw message