4 ms·
It really shines because it's agentless. If you were to ask me, if I have to manage the installation of the CM tool, I'm picking Ansible because I don't have t
by curryst 7y ago
It really shines because it's agentless. If you were to ask me, if I have to manage the installation of the CM tool, I'm picking Ansible because I don't have to deal with making sure agents run, etc. If another team is going to manage the agents, I like Saltstack (but their agents are somewhat brittle in my experience).
Saltstack offers some very cool orchestration features, and being built on ZMQ offers some interesting capabilities.
Also, with it not requiring an agent, it's feasible for you to use it as an admin even if the rest of the team doesn't adopt it. Other tools that run on agents generally require some amount of higher level buy-in on using the tool.
- fock 7y agosecond that: if I was sole admin for a whole cluster/farm of machines (n>50) with a equal configuration on a lot of them (or desktop-clients), I'd probably look into saltstack. For me ansible is perfect, I have some private services on a variety of VPS (read: mail & co for me and family, because the Internet is not yet another cloud...) and at work I use it for syncing my config and installing software on our lab-cluster as well as in my ${HOME} on the local HPC-center. Saltstack/Puppet/Chef won't help me with any of these, as I'd need multiple server for control alone. Logic in yaml sucks though – I'd probably jump ship anytime anybody provided the same thing (e.g. plain configuration management for "classical", non-cloud setups) with a real DSL (be it Python-based or whatever).