zlacker

We have worker groups that would allow you to do exactly this: https://docs.windmill.dev/docs/core_concepts/worker_groups

And you would do exactly what you suggest in the last paragraph

>>rubenf+(OP)
Thanks for the reply. Winmill is definitely something that I'll need to take a closer look at, when time permits. I do suspect though that it's going to be a bit too heavyweight to be a direct replacement for Rundeck.

>>rubenf+(OP)
> And you would do exactly what you suggest in the last paragraph

Assuming you mean this:

> Would it involve installing Windmill (or some component of it) on the mailserver, and setting it up as an individual worker group?

I was looking at Windmill as a replacement for Rundeck as well and this is exactly the point I was trying to figure out too.

I get why you need to install the worker. And there are lots of tools out there to automate this, from putting it in a custom AMI to tools like chef to building it as part of your base container image.

But one thing that's really nice about Rundeck (maybe the only thing) is that you can have it connect to any host and run commands with just some SSH credentials.

It also feels like worker groups maybe work for this use case but aren't the actual intention. Worker groups feel like "this script does some work and I want to make sure it runs on a machine with the resources that it needs to support its work". Whereas Rundeck scripts on remote hosts are more about "I want to run this command on this specific host because I'm doing maintenance on this host."

>>mason5+dy5
I guess you could have a script keep a long lived ssh deamon and do this

You could also use the inline script endpoints to ask the worker to execute bash commands directly. But this probably does not compare well to rundeck. If you had time, I'd be very interested to chat and understand what is the optimal experience you'd be looking for: ruben@windmill.dev