We used puppet to control about 800 servers for almost a year until we decided to cut our losses and move to a more scalable solution. We found puppet to be too flexible in certain places and not flexible enough in others. I've never used chef so I cannot really comment on how it works or the scalability of it but what we finally landed on was using etch ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/etch/ http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/etch/wiki/Introduction).
We now manage a little under 2000 hosts in three separate data centers with etch without any issues with scalability, flexibility or manageability whatsoever. We use etch in conjuction with nventory ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/nventory/) and life is 1,000 times more easier now than it was when we were using puppet. If you are looking into configuration management I would highly recommend at the very least checking out etch. -pat On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Charles Wyble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Roger E. Rustad, Jr. wrote: > > > > I was just aware of the "Puppet vs CFEngine" debate, and was unaware of > Chef... > > http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Home > > What made you switch? > > > Ah sorry I didn't include a link. Search for chef could take a while. :) > > It just seems to be much more elegant, and feels like the "right way to do > things". > > Something akin to the RedHat vs Debian debate for me. Debian just does it > right, where RH systems seem to have a lot of rough edges. > > Something something personal preference and operators I know preferring it, > and there being recipes for everything. > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > >
_______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list [email protected] http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
