On Wed 2018-Jan-17 23:11:14 +0000, Matthew Smee <matthew.s...@sydney.edu.au> wrote:
Yeah, it'd be silly for organisations to try and standardise their environments for services or infrastructure.
I'm somewhat in two minds there. Options to tackle operational complexity/expense:
Option 1: Require a homogeneous environment or minimize vendors/platforms as much as possible.
Option 2: Accept vendor/platform diversity as inevitable and build systems/abstractions around that.
Is #1 achievable? If you're expending time/effort/resources achieving #1 and fall short, don't you have to do #2 anyway?
Much has also been said on monocultures in infrastructure: having a single bug impact all of your gear sucks. If I can manage a pair of border routers, for instance, from two different vendors in an abstracted/consistent enough manner that I don't deal with their idiosyncrasies on a daily basis, am I not better off than running a single platform / code train in that function?
-- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
