As cdist is getting more popular, more people are using cdist and some questions arrive more often from newbies than others. One of them is why we require having Python 3.2 on the source host. If you are also wondering about the motivation, or you're screaming because you only have Python 2.x or Python 3.1 available in your distribution, this article is for you.
Note: Cdist does *not* require Python on the target hosts! Note: Cdist requires only ssh and a posix shell on the targets.
History of cdist
Because you may be one of the people who are screaming, I'm giving you an overview about the whole development history of cdist, which will make things more clear for you.
At the end of 2010 I was claiming that most current configuration management (CM) tools are not only overly complex designed, but also that their implementations are way too complex. This is definitely a strong statement, which I also used to provoke people to thing about the current situation of CM.
The logical consequence of my statement was to try out, whether it's actually possible to write a CM tool completly in a very simple manner. For instance in posix shell script. This led to the first commit to the newly born cdist repository:
commit 28a9807fe5e6bfa95015fe72456d63cbb2a5821f Date: Thu Sep 16 02:20:35 2010 +0200
After a lot of discussions, design ideas, pictures on the whiteboard, trying out different implementations, weighting up advantages of each one, the first official release of cdist was put into public, cdist 1.0.0:
tag 1.0.0 Date: Mon Mar 7 18:21:18 2011 +0100
Cdist 1.0.0 is completly implemented in posix shell and had almost all features of the current cdist implementation. With one major drawback: Performance. When running cdist 1.0.0 in parallel mode, the source host easily became the bottleneck. A typical run of cdist 1.0.0 caused around 3500 - 5000 forks. Running in parallel mode with about 10-15 target hosts, most time of a cdist run was spent in kernel space to handle the forks.
The logical sequence again was to search for the reason for the huge amount of forks, which was easily detected: Every routine was a shell script on its own, that required a new launch of the shell. Now, for some operations, like working on the dependency tree, a lot of sub-routines were called, leading to the huge number of forks.
We tried to minimise the number of forks by migrating from shell scripts to shell functions, which was a big pain, when we realised that posix shell does not have local variable support anymore. Posix states that you should use shell scripts instead of shell functions, if you need distinct environments. Which is exactly were we came from...
Thus we decided to switch to a different programming language for cdist's core, but only for the core. For us it is very important to minimise the dependencies on the target hosts: We do not want to install Ruby, Python, Java, libfoo or anything that is not usually available on a freshly installed base system. Cdist should be able to take over, as soon as the system is setup in a very basic state.
The choice felt on Python, because it felt very mature and easy to use. Additionally, Python 3 already provides a lot of functionality in its base installation: Everything we were used to do in shell, could easily be rewritten in plain Python 3. After exactly one year after the initial commit, cdist 2.0.0, a complete rewrite in Python 3 was finished and released:
tag 2.0.0 Date: Fri Sep 16 12:11:28 2011 +0200
Now, why Python 3.2?
During the development of cdist 2.0, we had a lot of discussions about clean design, pythonic ways of doing stuff (versus using the shell approach in python) and which functions to use. In the beginning, we were discussing about whether to settle for Python 2 or Python 3. As we did not have any dependencies or old code that relies on Python 2, the choice for the current stable tree, Python 3, was easy to make.
The argparse module is also available for Python 3.1, but not the enhanced os.makedirs method. So we had to decide: Should we integrate a simple workaround to support the previous Python 3 release, Python 3.1, or shall we upset users with old Python installations?
To answer this question, we had a look at the current situation of Python in various distributions.
Python support in Linux/BSD
A very quick research showed the following results:
|Distro||Version||Python version||Python 3?||Usable as cdist source host?|
|Fedora||15-17||3.2 - 3.2.2||yes||yes|
|Ubuntu||natty (11.04) - precise (12.04)||3.2 - 3.2.2||yes||yes|
So we have the following situations:
- There are a lot of distros with Python 3.2 available (Archlinux, Debian >= Wheezy, Fedora >= 15, FreeBSD, Gentoo, OpenBSD, OpenSuse, Ubuntu >= 11.04)
- There are distros which do not have Python 3 at all (Centos, Redhat, Slackware)
- Python 3 is definitely needed, so requiring 3.1 or 3.2 does not make a difference
- There are only two cases, which would make it interesting to support Python 3.1: Debian Squeeze (currently stable) and NetBSD.
- As I've been a long time Debian user, I understand this may be a bit annoying, because it's unclear, when wheezy will become stable. On the other hand, you can easily install python 3.2 from source to anywhere, like you'd do in the situation, when you wouldn't have python 3 at all.
- Another point speaking against 3.1 support for Debian is the fact that distributions should support the user and not developers should support distributions that ship old software (there's nothing against supporting old and new versions, though). That's by the way one of the reasons why I moved away from Debian...
- I am short on experience regarding NetBSD, but installing via source shouldn't be an issue either.
To summarise: Support for Python 3.1 only makes sense for Debian Squeeze and NetBSD at the moment. This requirement will soon [tm] be superseeded and can easily be worked around by selecting one of many distributions with more recent software packages. And that's the reason, why we settled for Python 3.2.
Btw, who is we?
You mave have noticed that I am often referring to we in this article. The second main developer for cdist is Steven Armstrong, a sysadmin at ETH Zurich and good friend of mine. The discussions and development time we spent together was very valuable for me as well for the whole cdist project and thus I wanted to use this article to say
Thank you, Steven.
[Disclaimer: I do not work for ETH Zurich anymore, but for local.ch]