3 ms·

This article makes a claim (...Puppet...Suck(s)), but does not take even attempt to explain what it is that sucks. What, specifically, "sucks" about Puppet and

This article makes a claim (...Puppet...Suck(s)), but does not take even attempt to explain what it is that sucks. What, specifically, "sucks" about Puppet and Chef and what is so much "simpler" about Salt or Ansible? As an Ops guy who has been running Puppet since 2008 (and Chef most recently) against hundred of servers, I don't see the simplicity reflected in the documentation, nor do I find Puppet or Chef particularly complicated. (Ok, Chef's attributes system is a bit confusing at first, but it is hugely powerful.)

fusiongyro 13y ago
From the article: > Chef works atop ssh, which – while the gold standard for cryptographically secure systems management – is computationally expensive to the point where most master servers fall over under the weight of 700-1500 clients. Salt’s approach was far simpler. I think I'm with you (without the experience): I find "it works over ssh" a lot simpler than "we wrote a custom protocol on 0mq." Simplicity apparently has lots of interpretations. I couldn't care less if ssh performs well enough to support a trillion connections. In practice, you only need a handful, usually one. Maybe Salt is fantastic. I'm not really in a position to judge. The article made it sound interesting to me, but I'm not sure attacking Chef/Puppet was really necessary, especially since it wasn't really expounded on.
ecopoesis 13y ago
The main reasons I dislike Puppet: 1) It's slow. Puppet runs take forever and use a lot of resources. 2) The Puppet language is terrible. Basically it looks like someone took Ruby and hit it with the stupid stick. Trying to build reusable components nearly impossible without resorting to hackery. I have no idea is Salt/Ansible/Chef are any better, but I'd be willing to give any of them a try based on just these issues.

3 ms·

This article makes a claim (...Puppet...Suck(s)), but does not take even attempt to explain what it is that sucks. What, specifically, "sucks" about Puppet and

by AaronBBrown 13y ago

fusiongyro 13y ago
From the article: > Chef works atop ssh, which – while the gold standard for cryptographically secure systems management – is computationally expensive to the point where most master servers fall over under the weight of 700-1500 clients. Salt’s approach was far simpler. I think I'm with you (without the experience): I find "it works over ssh" a lot simpler than "we wrote a custom protocol on 0mq." Simplicity apparently has lots of interpretations. I couldn't care less if ssh performs well enough to support a trillion connections. In practice, you only need a handful, usually one. Maybe Salt is fantastic. I'm not really in a position to judge. The article made it sound interesting to me, but I'm not sure attacking Chef/Puppet was really necessary, especially since it wasn't really expounded on.
ecopoesis 13y ago
The main reasons I dislike Puppet: 1) It's slow. Puppet runs take forever and use a lot of resources. 2) The Puppet language is terrible. Basically it looks like someone took Ruby and hit it with the stupid stick. Trying to build reusable components nearly impossible without resorting to hackery. I have no idea is Salt/Ansible/Chef are any better, but I'd be willing to give any of them a try based on just these issues.