4 ms·

It may be me but I rather like http://kubernetes.io/ http://kubernetes.io/ as this takes the approach that you are deploying an application not a set of dispara

by awjr 11y ago

It may be me but I rather like http://kubernetes.io/ http://kubernetes.io/ as this takes the approach that you are deploying an application not a set of disparate services.

meritt 11y ago
These aren't exactly comparable with Kubernetes. While there's overlap between the ultimate goals, we're fundamentally talking about two very different things. Kubernetes, Mesos, Swarm, Fleet, Marathon belong in one category (orchestration tools). Ansible, Chef, Puppet, Salt belong in another category (configuration management).
- krakensden 11y ago
  Ansible at its core is an orchestration tool that grew configuration management. It's not really the same beasty as Chef/Puppet/Salt. Salt is also pretty strong here, while Chef is basically worthless for anything outside of config management. And maybe it's because we don't have good terminology around this, but your 'orchestration tools' include both backend and frontend tools for cluster management- Marathon sits at the bottom of Mesos, etc- it just seems like a weird group.
- iso-8859-1 11y ago
  What does Google use for configuration management? And how do I do configuration management with Nix?
  - bbrazil 11y ago
    http://flabbergast.org/ http://flabbergast.org/ is the closest, and in a similar vein you'd have https://github.com/google/jsonnet https://github.com/google/jsonnet and then Nix. Configuration management is a very different thing to what most of ansible/chef/puppet/salt are commonly used for - it's possible to do it but it's a bit of an uphill battle. The core problem of config management is not pushing out things, but rather how do you represent configs with their myriad of interacting multi-level exceptions while also allowing tens/hundreds/thousands of operational changes to be ongoing at the same time. Ansible for example is good for about 3-4 levels of exceptions, which isn't that much considering region and environment (dev vs prod) are two of those.
    - arde 11y ago
      Flabbergast seems to have the right idea, but its lack of examples is a problem. Its only example is based around Apache Aurora (who in hell uses that and wtf it is I don't know, and I don't really want to learn that just to understand an example). This hasn't changed since it was first announced, so I don't think I'll take another look at it for quite a while unless I come by some reasonable howto.

by awjr 11y ago

It may be me but I rather like http://kubernetes.io/ http://kubernetes.io/ as this takes the approach that you are deploying an application not a set of disparate services.

meritt 11y ago

These aren't exactly comparable with Kubernetes. While there's overlap between the ultimate goals, we're fundamentally talking about two very different things. Kubernetes, Mesos, Swarm, Fleet, Marathon belong in one category (orchestration tools). Ansible, Chef, Puppet, Salt belong in another category (configuration management).

krakensden 11y ago
Ansible at its core is an orchestration tool that grew configuration management. It's not really the same beasty as Chef/Puppet/Salt. Salt is also pretty strong here, while Chef is basically worthless for anything outside of config management. And maybe it's because we don't have good terminology around this, but your 'orchestration tools' include both backend and frontend tools for cluster management- Marathon sits at the bottom of Mesos, etc- it just seems like a weird group.
iso-8859-1 11y ago
What does Google use for configuration management? And how do I do configuration management with Nix?
- bbrazil 11y ago
  http://flabbergast.org/ http://flabbergast.org/ is the closest, and in a similar vein you'd have https://github.com/google/jsonnet https://github.com/google/jsonnet and then Nix. Configuration management is a very different thing to what most of ansible/chef/puppet/salt are commonly used for - it's possible to do it but it's a bit of an uphill battle. The core problem of config management is not pushing out things, but rather how do you represent configs with their myriad of interacting multi-level exceptions while also allowing tens/hundreds/thousands of operational changes to be ongoing at the same time. Ansible for example is good for about 3-4 levels of exceptions, which isn't that much considering region and environment (dev vs prod) are two of those.
  - arde 11y ago
    Flabbergast seems to have the right idea, but its lack of examples is a problem. Its only example is based around Apache Aurora (who in hell uses that and wtf it is I don't know, and I don't really want to learn that just to understand an example). This hasn't changed since it was first announced, so I don't think I'll take another look at it for quite a while unless I come by some reasonable howto.