Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Capistrano
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion Capistrano vs Puppet
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jamis Buck  
View profile  
 More options Jan 22 2009, 4:03 pm
From: Jamis Buck <ja...@37signals.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:03:46 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jan 22 2009 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Capistrano] Re: Capistrano vs Puppet
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 1/22/09 1:57 PM, David Masover wrote:

> I'm an opinionated elitist, so my thoughts are:

> I'm not entirely sure what Puppet uses to set up the cluster. However,
> Cap ssh's to each server, which is not scalable -- a few hundred brings
> it to its knees.

For sure. Capistrano is definitely not intended to be used at that
scale. If someone were to find a (clean, maintainable) way to help cap
to scale that high, which didn't compromise the ease of use at smaller
scales, I'd be pleased to consider a patch, but I don't really intend to
do much work on my own to bring it to that level.

- Jamis


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google