[chef] Re: RHN, Cobbler and Chef

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tim Smith < >
  • To: " " < >
  • Subject: [chef] Re: RHN, Cobbler and Chef
  • Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:22:35 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US


Personally I would recommend keeping it all in Chef.  Our company started with a RHN sat server that handled a limited amount of management / deployment on RHEL systems.  We've moved to a pure Chef setup since then and it's made life a lot easier as we can manage all system types in a single location.  It'll probably make your life a lot easier to have it all come from a single location.  Creating two sources of truth will only cause confusion and reduce some of the cool things you can do with Chef via search.

Tim Smith

Operations Engineer

M: +1 707.738.8132

TW: @tas50


Real-Time Relevance. Remarkable ROI.™

London | Portland | San Francisco | Melbourne | Tokyo

I am looking for some provisioning guidance…


We have a  Red Hat Satellite server installed, but not well used/configured yet.


I’m not sold that RHN is the best solution for us.


I want Chef to be the “backbone” app that manages our Red Hat servers, packages, config files, services, etc.


Should RHN manage general OS packages and chef do specific things?


e.g.  I have a apache role, assign it to a server.  Part of the role says what version of apache to use.  Should that functionality live in cobbler/RHN instead?


Should we have a “production” repo that contains all packages and have chef ensure what is locally installed matches the production repo?  Should that be RHN’s job?


Is this a “it depends” type answer?



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.