I have this manifest:
$foremanlogin = file('/etc/puppetlabs/code/environments/production/manifests/foremanlogin.txt')
$foremanpass = file('/etc/puppetlabs/code/environments/production/manifests/foremanpass.txt')
$query = foreman({foreman_user => "$foremanlogin",
foreman_pass => "$foremanpass",
item => 'hosts',
search => 'hostgroup = "Web Servers"',
filter_result => 'name',
})
$quoted = regsubst($query, '(.*)', '"\1"')
$query6 = join($quoted, ",")
notify{"The value is: ${query6}": }
node ${query6} {
package { 'atop':
ensure => 'installed',
}
}
When I execute this on agent I got error:
Server Error: Could not parse for environment production: Syntax error at ''
Error in my node block
node ${query6} {
package { 'atop':
ensure => 'installed',
}
}
I see correct output from notify, my variable looks like this:
"test-ubuntu1","test-ubuntu2"
Variable in correct node manifest format.
I don't understand whats wrong? variable query6 is correct.
How to fix that?
I just want to apply this manifest to foreman host group, how to do this right?
On the Puppet side, you create classes describing how to manage appropriate subunits of your machines' overall configuration, and organize those classes into modules. The details of this are far too broad to cover in an SO answer -- it would be analogous to answering "How do I program in [language X]?".
Having prepared your classes, the task is to instruct Puppet which ones to assign to each node. This is called "classification". Node blocks are one way to perform classification. Another is external node classifiers (ENCs). There are also alternatives based on ordinary top-level Puppet code in your site manifest. None of these are exclusive.
If you are running Puppet with The Foreman, however, then you should configure Puppet to use the ENC that Foreman provides. You then use Foreman to assign (Puppet) classes to nodes and / or node groups, and Foreman communicates the details to Puppet via its ENC. That does not require any classification code on the Puppet side at all.
See also How does host groups work with foreman?
Related
I've added our infrastructure setup to puppet, and used roles and profiles method. Each profile resides inside a group, based on their nature. For example, Chronyd setup and Message of the day are in "base" group, nginx-related configuration is in "app" group. Also, on the roles, each profile is added to the corresponding group. For example for memcached we have the following:
class role::prod::memcache inherits role::base::debian {
include profile::app::memcache
}
The profile::app::memcached has been set up like this :
class profile::app::memcache {
service { 'memcached':
ensure => running,
enable => true,
hasrestart => true,
hasstatus => true,
}
}
and for role::base::debian I have :
class role::base::debian {
include profile::base::motd
include profile::base::chrony
}
The above structure has proved to be flexible enough for our infrastructure. Adding services and creating new roles could not been easier than this. But now I face a new problem. I've been trying to separate data from logic, write some yaml files to keep the data there, using Hiera version 5. Been looking through internet for a couple of days, but I cannot deduct how to write my hiera files based on the structure I have. I tried adding profile::base::motd to common.yaml and did a puppet lookup, it works fine, but I could not append chrony to common.yaml. Puppet lookup returns nothing with the following common.yaml contents :
---
profile::base::motd::content: This server access is restricted to authorized users only. All activities on this system are logged. Unauthorized access will be liable to prosecution.'
profile::base::chrony::servers: 'ntp.centos.org'
profile::base::chrony::service_enable: 'true'
profile::base::chrony::service_ensure: 'running'
Motd lookup works fine. But the rest, no luck. puppet lookup profile::base::chrony::servers returns with no output. Don't know what I'm missing here. Would really appreciate the community's help on this one.
Also, using hiera, is the following enough code for a service puppet file?
class profile::base::motd {
class { 'motd':
}
}
PS : I know I can add yaml files inside modules to keep the data, but I want my .yaml files to reside in one place (e.g. $PUPPET_HOME/environment/production/data) so I can manage the code with git.
The issue was that in init.pp file inside the puppet module itself, the variable $content was assigned a value. Removing the value fixed the problem.
I have external node classifier that manages the environment for each device in my puppet fleet.
When a device checks-in I'm updating it's configuration file so it knows what environment it's in:
ini_setting { 'set local enviornment':
ensure => present,
path => '/etc/puppetlabs/puppet/puppet.conf',
section => 'agent',
setting => 'environment',
value => 'environment_name',
}
I currently have each r10k branch hard-coding the name.
Instead I'd like to be able to use the same code block on all environments, something like:
ini_setting { 'set local enviornment':
...
value => $environment_name,
}
When a device checks-in I'm updating it's configuration file so it knows what environment it's in:
You do know that you don't need to do that for Puppet's sake, right? If you are (properly; see below) using an ENC to control nodes' environments then that overrides anything the nodes self-report, so you could do without nodes being locally configured to know their own environments at all.
Instead I'd like to be able to use the same code block on all
environments, something like:
ini_setting { 'set local enviornment':
...
value => $environment_name,
}
The correct way for an ENC to specify a node's environment to Puppet is by setting the environment key in its output for that node. This is how an ENC directly puts the node into the specified environment. Like any other top-level parameter emitted by the ENC, however, you can reference its value as a top-scope variable. Thus, if you want to update node's Puppet configuration to explicitly specify (after the fact) the environment that the ENC assigns to the node, then you can use that, much as you propose:
ini_setting { 'set local enviornment':
...
value => $::environment,
}
I've been thinking for hours on how to solve a problem with Puppet 4.
Here is my case :
I have a module "Cassandra", and I have 3 machines
Cluster1 (Hostname : CassandraCluster1)
Cluster2 (Hostname : CassandraCluster1)
Cluster3 (Hostname : CassandraCluster1)
I want to collect the hostnames of three clusters in an array, so I can pass them to the cassandra configuration file (which I'm using as a template epp) :
cassandra.yaml.epp
- seeds: "<%= $cluster::hostnames %>"
So the solution is Exported Resources I came up with :)
I've been playing with all day, but no idea how to make up this work. here is what I've tried :
on each cluster I add this code to collect the hostnames :
##file {"${hostname}":
content => 'epp(puppet://modules/cassandra/cassandra.yaml.epp)',
}
# Collect:
File <<| |>>
But I'm not sure if this is a good idea ?!
I've found a temporary solution that I'm using now :
I have a role fact which I'm adding to each machine. and I'm retrieving the hosts from puppetdb using puppetdbquery module.
and then on puppet code I use this query to find the nodes with the role attached
$hosts = query_nodes("role=apache")
To the extent that the question is how to create the wanted file with use of exported resources, it's important to understand that collecting exported resources causes them to be added to the target node's catalog. Exporting and collecting resources is not merely a data-transfer excercise. Your example exports several File resources; collecting these will result in the same number of separate files being managed on the target (or else a duplicate resource error if you happen to have a resource title collision).
For a long time, the usual way to build a file based on pieces contributed by multiple nodes was to use the puppetlabs/concat module, with each contributing node exporting a concat::fragment resource. For example:
##concat::fragment { "${hostname} Cassandra seed":
target => '/path/to/file',
content => " ${hostname}",
order => '10',
tag => 'cassandra'
}
Those would be collected into the catalog for the target node, to be used in conjunction with a corresponding concat resource declared there:
concat { '/path/to/file':
ensure => 'present',
# ...
}
concat::fragment { "Cassandra seed start":
target => '/path/to/file',
content => ' - seeds: "'
order => '05',
}
Concat::Fragment <<| tag == 'cassandra' |>>
concat::fragment { "Cassandra seed tail":
target => '/path/to/file',
content => '"'
order => '15',
}
That still works just fine, but it is becoming more common to rely instead on querying puppetdb, as you demonstrate in your own answer.
I'm learning puppet, and have come across a part of haproxy configuration which looks like the following
##haproxy::balancermember { $::fqdn:
listening_service => 'puppet00',
server_names => $::hostname,
ipaddresses => $::ipaddress,
ports => '8140',
options => 'check',
}
I'm trying to work out what the ## is called and what it does in this config
The manifest is declaring an exported resource for use by another node.
This allows you to create dynamic configurations that adapt to the shifting set of nodes in a given setup.
I have a best practice question around Puppet when working is server/agent mode.
I have created a working solution using a manifest/sites.pp configuration that identifies the configuration using the hostname of the agent.
For example:
node 'puppetagent.somedomain.com' {
include my_module
notify { 'agent configuration applied':
}
}
This works great for configuring a single node but what if I had a scenario in which I had multiple applications servers all with differing hostnames but all of which needed the same configuration.
Adding multiple node entries, comma separated hostname list or regular expressions doesn't feel like the 'right' way to do this.
Are there alternative ways? Can you define node 'types'? What do the community consider best practice for this?
Many thanks
If all the servers have the same configuration, inheritance, or the hieara hierarchy are the easiest ways to achieve this.
Once you need to maintain a larger set of systems where certain nodes have types such as 'web server' or 'database server' the configurations will diverge and the single inheritance model is not entirely sufficient.
You can use composition in those places. Take a peak at this article for more details.
Regular expressions might not be so bad, but I suppose the current trend is to use hiera_include.
You can do something dirty like this :
$roles = { 'webserver' => [ 'server1', 'server2', 'server3' ]
, 'smtp' => [ 'gw1', 'gw2' ]
}
node default {
$roles . filter |$k,$v| { $hostname in $v }
. each |$k,$v| { hiera_include($k) }
}
I would suggest taking a look at the concept of "roles and profiles" here: http://www.craigdunn.org/2012/05/239/
You can have multiple nodes all of which include the same configuration with a "profile" that includes one or more "roles".
As for defining multiple nodes with the same configuration or a "profile" containing "role(s)", I would suggest using hiera_include like #bartavelle mentioned. Except to use a common environment variable for identifying the nodes rather than using regular expressions.