[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [HTCondor-users] config.d vs condor_config.local

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/07/2014 01:19 PM, Philip Papadopoulos wrote:
> Don't Âknow if it is stable, but I would move to just using a Âconfig.d
> configuration. Seems like a more robust way to approach this.

Well, that's exactly the point: if, like the dump suggests,
condor_config.local is read after config.d

>> Contributing configuration file(s):
>> # Â Â Â /etc/condor/condor_config
>> # Â Â Â /etc/condor/config.d/10_config.wrk
>> # Â Â Â /etc/condor/config.d/20_config.cron
>> # Â Â Â /etc/condor/condor_config.local

then whatever junk may have come with the last yum up'd
condor_config.local will override your robust and modular local
config.d. Or you have to maintain all three sets of config files:
global, local and config.d -- I fail to see an improvement there.
Make your local config 0 bytes and do everything in config.dÂ
Modular configuration vs. monolithic configuration is a big win in my view. I'd much rather drop a zzlocal configuration file that overrides anything others might put in place, then edit a big, impenetrable configuration file.

No matter what, you You have to maintain a global config , if you make that minimal
(basically say that is should process config.d)Â then you are just maintaining a configuration directory
(something I'd much rather work with).

Dimitri Maziuk
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

HTCondor-users mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to htcondor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
subject: Unsubscribe
You can also unsubscribe by visiting

The archives can be found at:

Philip Papadopoulos, PhD
University of California, San Diego
858-822-3628 (Ofc)
619-331-2990 (Fax)