3 ms·
Calling that "serverless" is something of an abuse of the term. You can call it "push-based" rather than "pull-based" (a Chef/Puppet model), but there is defini
by eropple 9y ago
Calling that "serverless" is something of an abuse of the term. You can call it "push-based" rather than "pull-based" (a Chef/Puppet model), but there is definitely a "server" to be had--it's the machine running SSH and with the canonical datastore. It is--and this is one of many reasons I don't like Ansible very much--just a pretty poor server and often the developer's workstation.
"Serverless" would be more like what I described with regards to Chef Zero, where a machine, as it bootstraps, is able to fetch its playbooks from somewhere and self-execute with some sort of sourceable configuration data. The standard Ansible workflow is not only not "serverless", but it is antithetical to cloud-friendly scaling and fault-tolerance practices. (Think about how you're going to manage auto-scaling groups with it. It hurts.)
- user5994461 9y agoThere is no need to have a server at all. Any configuration can be run locally without ssh.
- eropple 9y agoSure! If you read the thread, you will notice that I explicitly describe how to do that. And that this post is not referring to doing that--it's explicitly referring to not doing that, instead doing remote provisioning via SSH. And, as a bonus, I went into some of the contributing factors that lead to people not doing it. So I'm not super sure why you felt compelled to reply?
- user5994461 9y agoYou were right in that your question was misphrased. Nobody seem to understand what you were asking.