4 ms·
I wouldn't be so harsh. Both Puppet and Chef come with their own (enterprisey) overhead and it's Yet Another Tool to understand and maintain. Chef in particular
by hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
I wouldn't be so harsh. Both Puppet and Chef come with their own (enterprisey) overhead and it's Yet Another Tool to understand and maintain. Chef in particular feels like an over-engineered solution for anyone managing less than hundreds of servers, it adds a lot of cruft (centralized server, authorization, protocols, etc.) that most people wouldn't need. I believe a lot of people like it for the sole reason they are not experienced managing servers, so they can just use pre-made recipes and call it a day.
Anyway, you can go a long way with just a bunch of scripts leveraging Fabric's API. I have setup ~10 servers for a news portal I run from the ground up in just a few lines of code. Managing dependencies is not ridiculously difficult as you make it sound, package managers (apt-get, pip) already handle that for you without any overhead.
- unohoo 14y agocompletely agree. Chef and puppet could be overkill for several small to mid sized environments. The learning curve for both is relatively steep as compared to fabric. With the parallel exec feature, fabric more than meets our requirements for a small setup (<10 instances).