[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: what cookbook are people using to interact with AWS these days?

[Kevin Nuckolls < >]

I have one data point that may be of use. We use eucalyptus internally, which is intended to be API compatible with AWS. It works exceedingly well. The only thing we've had any trouble with is swapping these gems to point to eucalyptus instead. The newest versions of the fog gem have made this very simple, and it's what we've built our aws cookbook, tooling, etc around.

I think it's likely best to keep in mind that these tools will be used with Eucalyptus too. The more they interop, the better.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Hector Castro < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

For the record, it appears that RightScale is actually keeping up with AWS feature additions – they just aren't cutting new versions of the gem.  This is why I had to take a snapshot of their GitHub repository and create a .gem from that.

All of that said, I agree that moving to the official AWS Ruby SDK is the best long-term solution.

--
Hector

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Mike < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

What say you, Joshua/Opscode? Would taking a stab at replacing the
right_aws gem with the AWS-supported one be something you'd consider?

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Greg Symons < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> Agreed. right_aws is also missing support for VPCs, so things like
> autojoining load balancers won't work in a VPC.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On 01/10/2013 10:23 AM, John E. Vincent (lusis) wrote:
>>
>> It might be worth considering moving to the official AWS ruby gem
>> instead of right_aws and waiting for it to support features?
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Joshua Timberman < " target="_blank"> >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Ben. Do you have any code for those? Or if anyone else does, a
>>> pull
>>> request would be great :).
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 16:42, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
>>>
>>> yup, that's the one.  I didn't look in detail at the three open requests,
>>> so
>>> I'm glad to hear that they're being watched.
>>>
>>> As requested:
>>> http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/COOK-2193 - Support for PIOPS
>>> http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/COOK-2194 - Support for EBS Optimized
>>> instances
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> -ben
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Joshua Timberman < " target="_blank"> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What cookbook are you referring to? Our Aws cookbook has three open pull
>>> requests. One was reviewed to be merged, one is a dupe that didn't have a
>>> CLA so a different one was merged and the third is a whitespace change
>>> but
>>> no ticket so we hadn't reviewed it yet.
>>>
>>> If there are additional features that would benefit the community we'd
>>> love
>>> to have them. Please open a ticket if one isn't already opened for piops.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 13:40, Ben Hartshorne wrote:
>>>
>>> We use the opscode AWS cookbook and added some piops stuff, but haven't
>>> upstreamed the changes.  (bad devops, bad!)  We're also using an older
>>> version of the aws cookbook, so our changes can't even apply to the
>>> current
>>> version, making it harder to upstream.  I'm sorry I can't give you a
>>> better
>>> answer, but yes, at least, we are using the opscode cookbook (and wish it
>>> would handle piops on its own).
>>>
>>> Maybe this is another candidate for the orphaned cookbooks list?  It's
>>> got
>>> three outstandand pull requests, the oldest being 8 months old.
>>>
>>> -ben
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Julian C. Dunn < " target="_blank"> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are people still using Opscode's AWS cookbook, or is there a better one
>>> to
>>> use?
>>>
>>> I'm looking to automate the creation of provisioned IOPS volumes and that
>>> cookbook doesn't seem to do that. Additionally it seems to use an old
>>> version of the right_aws Gem (and I'm not even sure if Rightscale is
>>> still
>>> officially maintaining that). [1]
>>>
>>> - Julian
>>>
>>> [1] http://forums.rightscale.com/showthread.php?t=909
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>