Specify foreman_maintain disk IO performance value




I want to specify the EXPECTED_IO for foreman_maintain which is used during upgrade.

First idea was, to “copy” the checks/disk/performance.rb and store it as a separate definition which is then used as a definitions_dirs. Unfortunately, this prints a lot of ruby warnings (of course, because the performance.rb definitions already exists). Actually, I would love to have such a concept to first load the installation-specific (vendor specific) definitions, and then load common definitions within foreman-maintain-VERSION/definitons/

Of course it would be possible to move the value of EXPECTED_IO into the configuration but I’m not sure if this is what you want.

Thanks you in advance.

Best regards,
Bernhard Suttner


Hi Bernhard,

thanks for the idea, could you share broader context of what you are trying to achieve?

I’m currently trying to figure out how to deal with system checks that are run by the installer. We need to run the same checks as part of pre-upgrade checks in foreman maintain and want to avoid duplicating the code. One of the problems is the hw requirements may differ between versions and installation scenarios. Your question seems to fit well to the puzzle and the solution may be affected by the decision taken on the checks so I’d like to know more.




as you may know, we (ATIX AG) are having our own product called orcharhino - which is similar to satellite but including full debian / ubuntu and suse support. We are following the development of foreman-maintain since the config management camp in Gent this year and we really like it. Therefore, we want to use it to provide a tool for our customers to easily upgrade our product.

To fulfill this, we can of course create a full copy of the “definitions” directory. This isn’t great as we would need to keep it in-sync with the original foreman-maintain definitions dir. Therefore, it would be great

  • to have some static values as config parameter OR
  • to merge the definitions files.

Best regards,


Any idea @maintain?