Ruby for Chef


#1

Two questions for my fellow chef’s…

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of
    

at least 1.9.2-p290.

  1.  Also, in compiling ruby from source, I find a lot of conflicting
    

information on the web. What do I actually need to support Chef Server
and Chef clients?

Currently, I am running a mix of SuSe 10, 11 and CentOS 5.x, 6.x and
some RedHat 5.x. I am concentrating on CentOS 5.x and 6.x. I found
the following on web and am trying it. However, I don’t want to
discover any gotchas’ down the road.

I have tried the RBEL repo version of Ruby-1.9.2-p290 RPM but it doesn’t
install correctly. I have compiled Ruby-1.9.2-p290 from source several
times and it seems to work, but, I’ve been bitten before.

Anyone have any recommendations. Remember, I have to run at least
1.9.2-p290.


#2

Randy,

We’re running chef using ruby 1.9.2p290, though I myself didn’t compile ruby from source. Works well. In fact, we found we couldn’t get chef to work with ruby 1.8.7 because of ssh bugs. Don’t know what would happen if you used an even newer ruby.

Jeff

From: Van Fossan,Randy [mailto:vanfossr@oclc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:59 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Subject: [chef] Ruby for Chef

Two questions for my fellow chef’s…

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at least 1.9.2-p290.
    
  2.  Also, in compiling ruby from source, I find a lot of conflicting information on the web.   What do I actually need to support Chef Server and Chef clients?
    

Currently, I am running a mix of SuSe 10, 11 and CentOS 5.x, 6.x and some RedHat 5.x. I am concentrating on CentOS 5.x and 6.x. I found the following on web and am trying it. However, I don’t want to discover any gotchas’ down the road.

I have tried the RBEL repo version of Ruby-1.9.2-p290 RPM but it doesn’t install correctly. I have compiled Ruby-1.9.2-p290 from source several times and it seems to work, but, I’ve been bitten before.

Anyone have any recommendations. Remember, I have to run at least 1.9.2-p290.


#3
  1. You sound like the poster child for the new Full Stack Client
    installer. It’s currently in beta but has been deployed in a wide
    variety of production environments already. It provides the full Chef
    stack (Ruby and dependencies) for many platforms (not sure about SuSE
    yet, but the others are covered) and isolates it from the rest of your
    installation (/opt/opscode) so you can run whatever version of Ruby
    you need for your applications. More here:
    http://lists.opscode.com/sympa/arc/chef/2011-12/msg00349.html and
    http://www.opscode.com/chef/install/

  2. There is not a Full Stack Chef Server yet, so I believe you’ll
    still have to tackle that problem with the resources on the wiki for
    managing your server platform of choice.

Thanks,
Matt Ray
Senior Technical Evangelist | Opscode Inc.
matt@opscode.com | (512) 731-2218
Twitter, IRC, GitHub: mattray

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Stroomer, Jeff
Jeff.Stroomer@disney.com wrote:

Randy,

We’re running chef using ruby 1.9.2p290, though I myself didn’t compile ruby
from source. Works well. In fact, we found we couldn’t get chef to work
with ruby 1.8.7 because of ssh bugs. Don’t know what would happen if you
used an even newer ruby.

Jeff

From: Van Fossan,Randy [mailto:vanfossr@oclc.org]

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:59 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Subject: [chef] Ruby for Chef

Two questions for my fellow chef’s…

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
    

least 1.9.2-p290.

  1.  Also, in compiling ruby from source, I find a lot of conflicting
    

information on the web. What do I actually need to support Chef Server and
Chef clients?

Currently, I am running a mix of SuSe 10, 11 and CentOS 5.x, 6.x and some
RedHat 5.x. I am concentrating on CentOS 5.x and 6.x. I found the
following on web and am trying it. However, I don’t want to discover any
gotchas’ down the road.

I have tried the RBEL repo version of Ruby-1.9.2-p290 RPM but it doesn’t
install correctly. I have compiled Ruby-1.9.2-p290 from source several
times and it seems to work, but, I’ve been bitten before.

Anyone have any recommendations. Remember, I have to run at least
1.9.2-p290.


#4

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Van Fossan,Randy vanfossr@oclc.org wrote:

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
    

least 1.9.2-p290.

I’ll second Matt’s reply, look into Full Stack Client.

That said, we’ve been using Ruby 1.9.3-p0 for a while now, on a
variety of distros, with no problem whatsoever. It’s also slightly
faster :slight_smile:


#5

I’ll third the full-stack installer. There are (still?) some issues to
be worked out around gem specific stuff (i.e. you manage ruby apps and
you also use chef. Where does the gem package provider install the
gem?) but I’m pretty damn impressed.

If you can do it, I’d also suggest using the hosted platform for now
and not shave the server yak just yet. Having said that, I had
absolutely no problems installing the server on the current ubuntu
LTS. If you treat the server as a turnkey service, then you don’t get
caught up in politics around distro choices. Management of it is
fairly hands off anyway (at least till you get to a certain size).

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrea Campi
andrea.campi@zephirworks.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Van Fossan,Randy vanfossr@oclc.org wrote:

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
    

least 1.9.2-p290.

I’ll second Matt’s reply, look into Full Stack Client.

That said, we’ve been using Ruby 1.9.3-p0 for a while now, on a
variety of distros, with no problem whatsoever. It’s also slightly
faster :slight_smile:


#6

So what’s the tipping point for chef-server requiring more baby-sitting?

Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: “John E. Vincent (lusis)” lusis.org+chef-list@gmail.com
Sender: lusis.org@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:49:42
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Reply-To: lusis.org+chef-list@gmail.com
Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Ruby for Chef

I’ll third the full-stack installer. There are (still?) some issues to
be worked out around gem specific stuff (i.e. you manage ruby apps and
you also use chef. Where does the gem package provider install the
gem?) but I’m pretty damn impressed.

If you can do it, I’d also suggest using the hosted platform for now
and not shave the server yak just yet. Having said that, I had
absolutely no problems installing the server on the current ubuntu
LTS. If you treat the server as a turnkey service, then you don’t get
caught up in politics around distro choices. Management of it is
fairly hands off anyway (at least till you get to a certain size).

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrea Campi
andrea.campi@zephirworks.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Van Fossan,Randy vanfossr@oclc.org wrote:

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
    

least 1.9.2-p290.

I’ll second Matt’s reply, look into Full Stack Client.

That said, we’ve been using Ruby 1.9.3-p0 for a while now, on a
variety of distros, with no problem whatsoever. It’s also slightly
faster :slight_smile:


#7

The most common issue seen on the list is couchdb tuning and breaking
the constituent parts out into distinct servers - couchbd on one
instance, rabbit on another, chef api server on another.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM, tom.ashley@gmail.com wrote:

So what’s the tipping point for chef-server requiring more baby-sitting?

Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: “John E. Vincent (lusis)” lusis.org+chef-list@gmail.com
Sender: lusis.org@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:49:42
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Reply-To: lusis.org+chef-list@gmail.com
Subject: [chef] Re: Re: Ruby for Chef

I’ll third the full-stack installer. There are (still?) some issues to
be worked out around gem specific stuff (i.e. you manage ruby apps and
you also use chef. Where does the gem package provider install the
gem?) but I’m pretty damn impressed.

If you can do it, I’d also suggest using the hosted platform for now
and not shave the server yak just yet. Having said that, I had
absolutely no problems installing the server on the current ubuntu
LTS. If you treat the server as a turnkey service, then you don’t get
caught up in politics around distro choices. Management of it is
fairly hands off anyway (at least till you get to a certain size).

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrea Campi
andrea.campi@zephirworks.com wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Van Fossan,Randy vanfossr@oclc.org wrote:

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at
    

least 1.9.2-p290.

I’ll second Matt’s reply, look into Full Stack Client.

That said, we’ve been using Ruby 1.9.3-p0 for a while now, on a
variety of distros, with no problem whatsoever. It’s also slightly
faster :slight_smile:


#8

I’m curious about the debain ssh issue your bumping into. Squeeze works for
us, as does knife ssh. What release are you running?
On Feb 22, 2012 7:31 AM, “Stroomer, Jeff” Jeff.Stroomer@disney.com wrote:

Randy,****


We’re running chef using ruby 1.9.2p290, though I myself didn’t compile
ruby from source. Works well. In fact, we found we couldn’t get chef to
work with ruby 1.8.7 because of ssh bugs. Don’t know what would happen if
you used an even newer ruby.****


Jeff****


From: Van Fossan,Randy [mailto:vanfossr@oclc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:59 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Subject: [chef] Ruby for Chef****


Two questions for my fellow chef’s… ****


1. ** Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ? We have a requirement
of at least 1.9.2-p290.
**

***2. ***Also, in compiling ruby from source, I find a lot of
conflicting information on the web. What do I actually need to support
Chef Server and Chef clients?


Currently, I am running a mix of SuSe 10, 11 and CentOS 5.x, 6.x and some
RedHat 5.x. I am concentrating on CentOS 5.x and 6.x. I found the
following on web and am trying it. However, I don’t want to discover any
gotchas’ down the road. ****


I have tried the RBEL repo version of Ruby-1.9.2-p290 RPM but it doesn’t
install correctly. I have compiled Ruby-1.9.2-p290 from source several
times and it seems to work, but, I’ve been bitten before.****


Anyone have any recommendations. Remember, I have to run at least
1.9.2-p290.****



#9

Kyle,

We’re on RedHat 5.5, and using release 0.10.4 of the chef client. It’s possible that with further fooling around we could have gotten chef to work with the 1.8.7 version of ruby, but our patience for that was limited given that we had other reasons for wanting ruby 1.9.

Jeff

From: Kyle Bader [mailto:kyle.bader@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:43 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Subject: [chef] Re: RE: Ruby for Chef

I’m curious about the debain ssh issue your bumping into. Squeeze works for us, as does knife ssh. What release are you running?
On Feb 22, 2012 7:31 AM, “Stroomer, Jeff” <Jeff.Stroomer@disney.commailto:Jeff.Stroomer@disney.com> wrote:
Randy,

We’re running chef using ruby 1.9.2p290, though I myself didn’t compile ruby from source. Works well. In fact, we found we couldn’t get chef to work with ruby 1.8.7 because of ssh bugs. Don’t know what would happen if you used an even newer ruby.

Jeff

From: Van Fossan,Randy [mailto:vanfossr@oclc.orgmailto:vanfossr@oclc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:59 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.commailto:chef@lists.opscode.com
Subject: [chef] Ruby for Chef

Two questions for my fellow chef’s…

  1.    Has anyone used Ruby 1.9.3-pxxx ?   We have a requirement of at least 1.9.2-p290.
    
  2.  Also, in compiling ruby from source, I find a lot of conflicting information on the web.   What do I actually need to support Chef Server and Chef clients?
    

Currently, I am running a mix of SuSe 10, 11 and CentOS 5.x, 6.x and some RedHat 5.x. I am concentrating on CentOS 5.x and 6.x. I found the following on web and am trying it. However, I don’t want to discover any gotchas’ down the road.

I have tried the RBEL repo version of Ruby-1.9.2-p290 RPM but it doesn’t install correctly. I have compiled Ruby-1.9.2-p290 from source several times and it seems to work, but, I’ve been bitten before.

Anyone have any recommendations. Remember, I have to run at least 1.9.2-p290.


#10

On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Stroomer, Jeff wrote:

We’re on RedHat 5.5, and using release 0.10.4 of the chef client. It’s possible that with further fooling around we could have gotten chef to work with the 1.8.7 version of ruby, but our patience for that was limited given that we had other reasons for wanting ruby 1.9.

We’re on CentOS 5.6, and got our start with Chef 0.10.4. I spent … a very long time … trying to get everything to install via packages, etc… before I was introduced to an early version of the Full Stack Installer. We made the switch, and haven’t looked back since.

FSI FTW!


Brad Knowles bknowles@ihiji.com
SAGE Level IV, Chef Level 0.0.1


#11

Brad, et al.,

Were we doing this again, a Full Stack Installer would be interesting. It’s expensive and tedious to have an engineer (e.g., me) put in endless hours chasing down clerical problems in a software solution built from pieces. And part of the point of Chef is to automate away that kind of chase.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Knowles [mailto:bknowles@ihiji.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:05 AM
To: chef@lists.opscode.com
Cc: Brad Knowles
Subject: [chef] Re: RE: Re: RE: Ruby for Chef

On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Stroomer, Jeff wrote:

We’re on RedHat 5.5, and using release 0.10.4 of the chef client. It’s possible that with further fooling around we could have gotten chef to work with the 1.8.7 version of ruby, but our patience for that was limited given that we had other reasons for wanting ruby 1.9.

We’re on CentOS 5.6, and got our start with Chef 0.10.4. I spent … a very long time … trying to get everything to install via packages, etc… before I was introduced to an early version of the Full Stack Installer. We made the switch, and haven’t looked back since.

FSI FTW!


Brad Knowles bknowles@ihiji.com
SAGE Level IV, Chef Level 0.0.1