Re: Chef questions

[Scott Likens <scott@likens.us>]

I think the best answer to this is,

everything is subjective to an opinion that we can attempt to make  
fact or fiction from there on.

Puppet is puppet, it does what it does and it does it very well;  
however _I_ personally prefer chef over puppet any day based on  
deployment ease, stability in my mixed multiple data center environment.

25 Clients in 1 data center
24 Clients + 1 Server in another Data Center
12 other clients some Xen some KVM in the office...

Redhat 5.2 and 5.3 (and Centos (it's el5 right?))
Ubuntu Hardy (Xen) and Ubuntu Jaunty (KVM and non)

It works extremely well, it's very reliable and it was very easy to  
get up and running using Ubuntu Jaunty for the Chef Server.

... I have also used puppet previously and I can tell you that I don't  
miss the messy messy site.pp I had, I admit most of it was my fault  
but Chef's UI even as it is in 6.2 is a breeze to me in comparison.   
Having roles in 0.6.4 will just only make it better.

If nothing else I suggest grabbing VirtualBox and grabbing a Ubuntu  
Jaunty ISO and installing Chef Server and checking out the web-ui,  
look at the recipes and then configure a server to connect to it and  
start testing it and playing with it and writing recipes.  I will say  
that once  you start cooking with Chef you just won't look at cooking  
the same again (in my opinion).

FYI The Chef's server load is never over 1 on a Dell PowerEdge 1850  
which does other various tasks such as Ubuntu Mirror and rsnapshot...  
very menial and the load is rarely over 0.25 1minute/5/15...

... Safe to say that's excellent knowing i'm using Apache + Passenger  
for Chef.  I'm not much of a Passenger lover but it has worked quite  
well in this instance.

I hope that helps

Sincerely,

Scott M. Likens

On May 25, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Stas Oskin wrote:

> Hi.
>
> That's a pretty subjective response and not backed with any evidence.
>
> But we'll let it pass through to the keeper. :)
>
>
> So is it true or not? :)
>
> I'm know it's not probably not the appreciate place to ask, but I do  
> look for solution which would require from me less typing :).
>
> Regards.
> !DSPAM:4a1a50b423381804284693!