But, you may well be using a certain recommended cluster for a certain OS, and then need to jump a box to test the next recommended cluster right? Surely, it's not necessary to make a global change to your production server build configuration when implementing a test cluster?
As far as I can tell, base_config's use of recommended clusters is not handled in a manner that encourages good revision management. For each OS major revision (e.g., 10, 9, 8) there can be one cluster. For example, in today's JET software if we were using /export/install as our JET media base there would be a directory called /export/install/patches. Under that we can store one patch cluster for each major OS revision:
That works nicely until the next recommended cluster is released. At that point in time you can no longer have a repeatable build process because you need to replace the single instance of each OS with the new cluster. Not a good plan. We want our patch configuration to be configured in the template so that it's managed, and can be under source code control. Managing patch configurations outside the template is pretty much impossible to audit.
Here's an alternative approach I think would be a step in the right direction: Create a hierarchy to organize recommended clusters:
We need to be able to add recommended clusters in the same way we add other products. I'd like to see a new command called "list_recommended_clusters" which would have an output something like this:
These clusters could then be specified in the JET template using a variable like base_config_recommended_cluster. In addition, the check routine used during a make_client invocation would ensure that the directory exists, and perhaps ensure that each patch on the patch_list was represented. Bingo! Now we can use good revision control to manage the integration of patch clusters with our server build process.
But I think we can take it one step farther. How about we add the ability to include arbitrary patch sets? Here's a first cut at how it could work: We start by creating a patch repository. Say, /export/install/patch_repo. Under that directory we may have subdirectories for 5.10, 5.9, etc. Patches are simply added to that directory by copying them into place. Nothing fancy. The nice thing about this approach is in its economy of space.
The recommended clusters will have a lot of overlap between them, with the potential for storing the same patch in many different directories. By having one patch repository, we simply store each necessary patch one time and refer to it in a patch_order file. It would be trivial to write a few scripts that could operate or query on a set of patches according to a certain patch list, or perhaps cull out patches not referenced in any current patch lists. I could give or take this feature. There are some good arguments to be made for just storing each patch set and ignoring the storage space. I'm ok with either approach, and even happier if this flexibility were accounted for.
Having established a patch repository, we now need a place to manage patch lists. These would be in typical patch_order formatted lists; No need to reinvent the wheel. Each would need to be named with a unique identifier. For example,
These patch lists could then be specified within base_config as an alternative to using the Recommended clusters. Why?
- The site has a known incompatibility with a patch or two in the common cluster.
- The site wants to deploy other patches in the early part of the install as part of a managed list rather than manual entries in a template (e.g., custom_patches).
- Using these lists allows a configuration to be frozen in time for configuration management, and allows a convenient record of exactly what a server was deployed with
I think these would be some very beneficial enhancements to the JET framework. I'd like to work on some of them, but I wanted to get the idea out there before I got wrapped up in something else and forgot about it. I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts on this topic - especially if someone has a better idea!
By the way, I do know about EIS baselines. But I think it's pretty rare for any enterprise to never have need for managing custom patch sets. It would be great if JET could come through with some help in this space.