| 1 |
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:19:37 PM Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:43:18PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Puppet seems to me a good product for a large site with 1000 hosts. |
| 4 |
> > Not so much for ~20 or so. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I find that for a few machines, puppet is overkill. For a lot of |
| 7 |
> machines, puppet can become unmanageable - with puppet master and |
| 8 |
> security being the culprit. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> We have used puppet a lot but recently settled on salt (strictly |
| 11 |
> speaking not my decision so cannot really compare it with ansible) and |
| 12 |
> we are happy with the outcome. You might want to consider |
| 13 |
> app-admin/salt as well. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Looks good (had a really quick look). |
| 16 |
From what I read (and please correct me if I'm wrong), a difference between |
| 17 |
salt and ansible is: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Salt Requires a daemon to be installed and running on all machines |
| 20 |
and the versions need to be (mostly) in sync |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For Alan, this might work, but for my situation it wouldn't, as I'd need to |
| 23 |
keep various VMs in sync with the rest where I'd prefer to simply clone them |
| 24 |
and then enforce changes. Relying on SSH and powershell makes that simpler. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But, it does mean that all nodes need to have incoming ports open. With Salt, |
| 27 |
all nodes connect back to the master. This allows a tighter security. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Joost |
Archives