4 ms·

Dude, the yaml files I'm writing require good knowledge of the system they are configuring. i deploy all our cloud instances using Ansible (yml files) and I wo

Dude, the yaml files I'm writing require good knowledge of the system they are configuring. i deploy all our cloud instances using Ansible (yml files) and I wouldn't have a hope of doing that if I didn't understand the OS I'm configuring with it (Linux). I might see your point if you're talking about the yml that is used to configure 'value added' products from cloud vendors, but I avoid those like the expensive handcuffs that they are.

scarface74 7y ago
So what do you use to configure your actual resources - like creating your network infrastructure, load balancers, VMs, dns entries, etc.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  I use ansible to provision Centos 7 instances, and then I use another playbook to install and configure stuff on them like haproxy, bind 9, etc... This leaves me in complete control and keeps prices low because I only ever use vanilla instances. I'm not on Amazon right now, but when I was I used to use ansible to configure networking on it and security groups etc, but I would always try to keep the vendor specific stuff to a minimum.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    If you’re using Amazon as a glorified colo, you’ve got the worse of both worlds. You’re spending more on infrastructure and you’re not taking advantage of managed services to decrease the time and staff you spend on babysitting infrastructure. There is a lot more to AWS than VMs.
    - gerbilly 7y ago
      I see, so I'm doing it wrong you say? But I never said I was using Amazon. I'm using an internal cloud service at my company. It does not offer any managed services. Also when I do use AWS for clients, I _sometimes_ use managed services¹, but most of those lock you in to Amazon. Some clients don't care, some do. They are paying, so I don't care either way. In either case, I spend very little time babysitting infrastructure, just FYI, even when I use bare instances. And in my opinion² if people aren't careful about managed services, then they won't have any OS knowledge anymore, and will just be left with product knowledge. Sure, managed services make things easier, but they also make your sysadmin muscles weak. 1: Aurora DB for example. That one I like because there's no lock in. I can always move my tables to a standalone MySQL. 2: As someone who is 100% comfortable using bare Linux without having to use containers, managed services, control panels or even google searches to keep my stuff running, and have been doing so since the early 90s.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Sure, managed services make things easier, but they also make your sysadmin muscles weak. I want my sysadmin muscles to be weak. I’m not saying that sysadmin isn’t important, but why spend time managing servers and doing the “undifferentiated heavy lifting” instead of adding value and dealing more with strategy?

scarface74 7y ago

So what do you use to configure your actual resources - like creating your network infrastructure, load balancers, VMs, dns entries, etc.

gerbilly 7y ago
I use ansible to provision Centos 7 instances, and then I use another playbook to install and configure stuff on them like haproxy, bind 9, etc... This leaves me in complete control and keeps prices low because I only ever use vanilla instances. I'm not on Amazon right now, but when I was I used to use ansible to configure networking on it and security groups etc, but I would always try to keep the vendor specific stuff to a minimum.
- scarface74 7y ago
  If you’re using Amazon as a glorified colo, you’ve got the worse of both worlds. You’re spending more on infrastructure and you’re not taking advantage of managed services to decrease the time and staff you spend on babysitting infrastructure. There is a lot more to AWS than VMs.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    I see, so I'm doing it wrong you say? But I never said I was using Amazon. I'm using an internal cloud service at my company. It does not offer any managed services. Also when I do use AWS for clients, I _sometimes_ use managed services¹, but most of those lock you in to Amazon. Some clients don't care, some do. They are paying, so I don't care either way. In either case, I spend very little time babysitting infrastructure, just FYI, even when I use bare instances. And in my opinion² if people aren't careful about managed services, then they won't have any OS knowledge anymore, and will just be left with product knowledge. Sure, managed services make things easier, but they also make your sysadmin muscles weak. 1: Aurora DB for example. That one I like because there's no lock in. I can always move my tables to a standalone MySQL. 2: As someone who is 100% comfortable using bare Linux without having to use containers, managed services, control panels or even google searches to keep my stuff running, and have been doing so since the early 90s.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Sure, managed services make things easier, but they also make your sysadmin muscles weak. I want my sysadmin muscles to be weak. I’m not saying that sysadmin isn’t important, but why spend time managing servers and doing the “undifferentiated heavy lifting” instead of adding value and dealing more with strategy?