| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:43:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Puppet seems to me a good product for a large site with 1000 hosts. |
| 4 |
> Not so much for ~20 or so. Plus puppet's language and configs get large |
| 5 |
> and hard to keep track of - lots and lots of directory trees with many |
| 6 |
> things mentioning other things. (Nagios has the same problem if you |
| 7 |
> start keeping host, services, groups and commands in many different |
| 8 |
> files) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm using puppet for small installs (< 10 hosts) and am quite happy with |
| 11 |
it. It's wonderful to push some changes and have all these hosts |
| 12 |
configure themselves accordingly. Not to mention the joy of adding new |
| 13 |
hosts. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The configuration can get large, but then again, these are all things |
| 16 |
that you are already managing on the host. Better to do it all in one |
| 17 |
place, rather than on each individual host with all its associated |
| 18 |
inconsistencies. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Us being a ruby shop I never looked at ansible and I'm not even sure it |
| 21 |
existed when we choose puppet. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
One thing you can do to make the deployment easier for smaller scale |
| 24 |
setups would be to use a masterless puppet. One less component to worry |
| 25 |
about. Just distribute the puppet repository and run puppet apply. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hans |
Archives