[pca] Reporting in a client / server scenario

[Fred Chagnon]

The other reason to favour method 1 would be to minimize processing on your
clients. Sure running pca is low overhead, but the model does suggest a nice
clean approach to just getting what's needed from the client systems, and
doing all the logic and intelligence elsewhere behind the scenes.

Fred

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM, French, David <David_French at intuit.com>wrote:

>  I use Method 1 as it was easy to get the data to a central location which
> could then be queried later without having to access the server.  For
> example, you can use the centralized files to allow managers and other to
> generate reports as they see fit via a web interface.  If you used method 2,
> the only reports they could see would be what you pre-created on the
> clients.   If you passed the query to the client, you’d have to set up a
> process to receive requests, run pca and respond.   You also have the issue
> detailed in the next paragraph.
>
>
>
> Another reason Method 1 works for me is the clients use static xref files
> based on the date to patch to.  That is I have a mechanism so servers define
> their patch to date.  This way the patching from pre-prod environments to
> prod stays consistent but is done at different times.  Due to this, the xref
> file is frozen on the server and reports will only be based on that xref
> file.  If the processing is done on a central host, it can always use the
> latest xref file for all hosts to see the current state based on the most
> recent patches and not those the server knows about.
>
>
>
> Anyway, hope this helps.
>
>
>
>             --Dave
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:
> pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at] *On Behalf Of *Asif Iqbal
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 11:54 AM
> *To:* PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
> *Subject:* [pca] Reporting in a client / server scenario
>
>
>
> I am debating on which path to take in reporting the pca status of 300
> clients.
>
> method 1
>
> - collect the showrev, uname and pkginfo for each client and send it to the
> server as hostname_*.out files
> - have the central server to generate report for each client based on its
> output files received
>
> method 2
>
> - generate the report of pca -l missing for each client on the client
> - send the generated report to the server
>
>
> I like method 1,  because it can be plugged into my hobbit client with
> really minimal change
>
> Looking for suggestion(s)
>
> --
> Asif Iqbal
> PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
>


-- 
Fred Chagnon
fchagnon at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.univie.ac.at/mailman/private/pca/attachments/20090323/d5bed81c/attachment.html