3 ms·

> Only if your environment is cluster-like set of clones of a golden image, dutifully kept up-to-date with it. That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. A lot

> Only if your environment is cluster-like set of clones of a golden image, dutifully kept up-to-date with it. That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. A lot of this depends on your environment, so it's very much a YMMV thing, but for me, it has worked out much better. > If you happen to have two or more roles for the servers, shell scripts start tearing at their seams. I guess it depends on how you set up your scripts. I made mine "config-management-esque", which is very modular, and it works well for me.

dozzie 10y ago
> That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. Then I have a bad news for you: except for rare case of overgrown startups, virtually nobody else has this kind of environment. Larger, established companies need file servers, external web servers, application servers to run internal services (multiple of them), directory services, print servers, and many others I couldn't remember at the moment. Heck, even development vs. production environments can have significant differences in configuration. >> If you happen to have two or more roles for the servers, shell scripts start tearing at their seams. > I guess it depends on how you set up your scripts. I made mine "config-management-esque", which is very modular, and it works well for me. Of course it depends. CM systems are regular programs and not magic, after all. One can write one from scratch. I just really doubt your is a sensibly generic one instead of being "mine set of scripts that only works for my environment". It takes a lot, lot of experience in both programming and system administration to develop such a thing.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I think our definition of homogeneous might be different then. I have file-servers, web-servers, app-servers, etc, and I would consider my environment homogeneous. I use the same base-os, and I can reuse the same scripts for each type of server because of how modular my system is. For my setup, just using shell scripts works much simpler and easier. But I'm also not advocating that shell-scripts will work for everyone. For many situations, a full-fledged config-mgmt system is the better solution. I've just never been in one.
  - dozzie 10y ago
    > I think our definition of homogeneous might be different then. Well, you said yourself: >> Only if your environment is cluster-like set of clones of a golden image, dutifully kept up-to-date with it. > That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. Apparently you meant something different than I understood from this.

dozzie 10y ago

> That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. Then I have a bad news for you: except for rare case of overgrown startups, virtually nobody else has this kind of environment. Larger, established companies need file servers, external web servers, application servers to run internal services (multiple of them), directory services, print servers, and many others I couldn't remember at the moment. Heck, even development vs. production environments can have significant differences in configuration. >> If you happen to have two or more roles for the servers, shell scripts start tearing at their seams. > I guess it depends on how you set up your scripts. I made mine "config-management-esque", which is very modular, and it works well for me. Of course it depends. CM systems are regular programs and not magic, after all. One can write one from scratch. I just really doubt your is a sensibly generic one instead of being "mine set of scripts that only works for my environment". It takes a lot, lot of experience in both programming and system administration to develop such a thing.

CaptSpify 10y ago
I think our definition of homogeneous might be different then. I have file-servers, web-servers, app-servers, etc, and I would consider my environment homogeneous. I use the same base-os, and I can reuse the same scripts for each type of server because of how modular my system is. For my setup, just using shell scripts works much simpler and easier. But I'm also not advocating that shell-scripts will work for everyone. For many situations, a full-fledged config-mgmt system is the better solution. I've just never been in one.
- dozzie 10y ago
  > I think our definition of homogeneous might be different then. Well, you said yourself: >> Only if your environment is cluster-like set of clones of a golden image, dutifully kept up-to-date with it. > That's kind of what I mean by homogeneous. Apparently you meant something different than I understood from this.