[rancid] Parallel Execution of Rancid
kyle at lodge.glasgownet.com
Sat Nov 30 20:24:47 UTC 2013
I work beside Callum... yes, it's a dupe. It looks like the initial
posting forum, Google Groups, took about 5 hours to dispatch it to the
list. Within that time we surmised that Google Groups didn't send to
the list at all and kept it contained within their interface, so it
was reposted via mailman.
Lesson learned, and original reply received!
On 30 November 2013 19:28, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/2013 13:15, Callum Scott wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I've been searching around for an answer to this and can't seem to
>> find anything.
>> My organisation currently has a large number of sites with a varying
>> number of network devices each of which we would like to back up with
>> rancid. Im using dotwaffle's patched version to include git support,
>> though this shouldn't make a difference for this issue.
>> Because I am sorting by SITE I have over 1000 rancid groups. Some have
>> only 5 networking devices, whilst others will have tens of networking
>> My problem is that the rancid-run is taking a massive amount of time
>> (in the order of days). I have tried playing around with the
>> PAR_COUNT to increase concurrency and also reduce the MAX_ROUNDS to
>> reduce the amount of time spent on each device. It looks to me that
>> the PAR_COUNT only comes in during the execution of the control_rancid
>> script, which means concurrency only hits in within the GROUP.
>> I'd like a way to run rancid_run on the groups in parallel. Am I
>> missing something obvious here? Does anyone have any ideas on how to
>> achieve this?
> This looks like a dupe posting. Did you get my reply dated 29 Nov 15:55?
> Alan McKinnon
> alan.mckinnon at gmail.com
> Rancid-discuss mailing list
> Rancid-discuss at shrubbery.net
Kyle Gordon - 2M1DIQ
Jabber/Email/SIP: kyle at lodge.glasgownet.com
More information about the Rancid-discuss