DEV/TEST/DR/PROD/QA/etc are just service level definitions that are agreed between who provide the infrastructure and who use it
based on this idea, you can name something production and as long the counterpart understand the timing (recover from crash, reboot, engagement to investigate, rebuild in worst case scenario), then sure, all happy leaving the SLA wording out, the only care I would have is the ppl managing this is comfortable, and everyone agrees is the best at hand.. Cutting the instrasttructre in layers.. Vagrant provide an easy way to provide VM, so fits into IAAS. in prod, is not much a requirement to be quick/flexible in IAAS space, so most people require a good App aas, that vagrant coordinate calling the provisioners (puppet, chef, scripts, etc), so if there is not a requirement for the vm provisioning, you can just take the ideas of vagrant out and use them without vagrant.. my 2 cents. Alvaro. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Brian Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there any reason why Vagrant couldn't be used to spin up Production VMs > on the fly and have them provisioned with Puppet? > > I see a lot of talk about development servers, but to me that's just a > term. It seems to me that Vagrant wouldn't care what role the box serves. > > Is my assumption correct? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Vagrant" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vagrant" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
