Table of Contents
What is the difference between Ansible Puppet and Chef?
Ansible is written in Python supported with YAML scripts. Puppet is written in Ruby that supports Domain Specific Language with Ruby. The chef is written in Ruby with DSL and has prototype programming. There is only one active node for its configuration, whereas Puppet and Chef follow master-slave architecture.
What is better Puppet or Chef?
To use an analogy, using Puppet is like writing configuration files whereas using Chef is like programming the control of your nodes. If you or your team have more experience with system administration, you may prefer Puppet. On the other hand, if most of you are developers, Chef might be a better fit.
Which is better Ansible or SaltStack?
Saltstack is heavier with the software tools and the messaging data bus. Ansible is relatively compared to lightweight, and hence it is easier to manage for the users. The speed is more when compared to Ansible as it works with messaging data bus, and the information is passed promptly.
What is difference between Chef and Ansible?
Setting it Up: Chef operates with a master-client architecture. The server part runs on the master machine, while the client portion runs as an agent on every client machine. On the other hand, Ansible only uses a master running on the server machine, but no agents running on the client machine.
What is Puppet Chef Ansible used for?
Generally, Ansible, Puppet, SaltStack, and Chef are considered to be configuration management (CM) tools and were created to install and manage software on existing server instances (e.g., installation of packages, starting of services, installing scripts or config files on the instance).
What is Ansible compare Ansible with Puppet?
The difference is that ansible-playbook can be run from centralised places, whereas Puppet needs an agent to run on each node. In short, Puppet will always require an extra component/package to be installed on the destination server to make it all work, regardless if you go masterless or not.
Why Ansible is better than chef and puppet for configuration management?
Configuration language plays a prominent role in determining the applications of a configuration management tool. When it comes to ease of setup and installation, Ansible dominates the other two tools as it has ‘agentless’ architecture. Chef and Puppet follow master-agent or master-slave architecture.
Which DevOps tool should you choose between chef or Ansible?
When it comes to ease of setup and installation, Ansible dominates the other two tools as it has ‘agentless’ architecture. Chef and Puppet follow master-agent or master-slave architecture. The management of the DevOps tools depends upon the language and configuration of the tools. There are two types of configurations including ‘pull’ and ‘push’.
What are the similarities between puppet and chef and salt?
Puppet and Chef have similar configuration for deployment as they are primarily using a DSL for writing code. Salt and Ansible are similar in that they use YAML by default for configuration. I believe Puppet and Chef are both implemented in Ruby where as Salt and Ansible are Python.
Which is the best configuration tool for DevOps?
There are a number of latest DevOps configuration tools such as Chef, Puppet, SaltStack and Ansible with various features available in the market. So, there is an inevitable need for the comparison of various configuration tools to identify the best tool for the success of DevOps projects.