On 17/09/2014 07:46, Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:43:18 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> Puppet seems to me a good product for a large site with 1000 hosts. >> Not so much for ~20 or so. Plus puppet's language and configs get large >> and hard to keep track of - lots and lots of directory trees with many >> things mentioning other things. (Nagios has the same problem if you >> start keeping host, services, groups and commands in many different >> files) > > I'm using puppet for small installs (< 10 hosts) and am quite happy with > it. It's wonderful to push some changes and have all these hosts > configure themselves accordingly. Not to mention the joy of adding new > hosts.
I want the benefits of puppet and the end result it brings about - that's already established. > > The configuration can get large, but then again, these are all things > that you are already managing on the host. Better to do it all in one > place, rather than on each individual host with all its associated > inconsistencies. > > Us being a ruby shop I never looked at ansible and I'm not even sure it > existed when we choose puppet. Ansible is somewhat new, and reading between the lines it might have been written in response to large complex puppet installs. > One thing you can do to make the deployment easier for smaller scale > setups would be to use a masterless puppet. One less component to worry > about. Just distribute the puppet repository and run puppet apply. Well, I've already decided to not use puppet, I find it over-complex for my needs (not to mind that the language has some confusing parts to it ) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
