Ansible vs Puppet Labs

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Ansible

18.8K
15.3K
+ 1
1.3K
Puppet Labs

1.1K
787
+ 1
227
Add tool

Ansible vs Puppet Labs: What are the differences?

  1. Configuration Language: Ansible uses YAML for configuration management, providing a simple and human-readable syntax, while Puppet Labs uses its own domain-specific language that can have a steeper learning curve.

  2. Agentless vs. Agent-based: Ansible operates in an agentless mode, connecting to remote systems via SSH, which simplifies deployment and management. On the other hand, Puppet Labs requires an agent to be installed on each managed node, adding complexity to the infrastructure.

  3. Workflow Automation: Ansible is more focused on task execution and orchestration, allowing for simpler automation of workflows. In contrast, Puppet Labs emphasizes the desired state configuration management approach, ensuring that the system remains in a defined state over time.

  4. Community Support: Ansible has a large and active community that contributes to its vast collection of roles and modules. Puppet Labs, while also having a strong community, may not have as extensive a library of pre-built modules as Ansible.

  5. Ease of Use: Ansible is known for its ease of use and quick setup, making it a popular choice for rapid deployment and configuration tasks. Puppet Labs, with its more complex agent-based architecture, may require more time and effort to set up and maintain.

  6. Scalability: Ansible is well-suited for small to medium-sized infrastructures due to its agentless design and lightweight nature. In comparison, Puppet Labs may be better suited for larger, more complex environments that require strict control over system configurations.

In Summary, Ansible and Puppet Labs differ in configuration language, agent architecture, workflow automation, community support, ease of use, and scalability.

Advice on Ansible and Puppet Labs
Needs advice
on
AnsibleAnsible
and
RundeckRundeck

We have a lot of operations running using Rundeck (including deployments) and we also have various roles created in Ansible for infrastructure creation, which we execute using Rundeck. Rundeck we are using a community edition. Since we are already using Rundeck for executing the Ansible role, need an advice. What difference will it make if we replace Rundeck with Ansible Tower? Advantages and Disadvantages? We are using Jenkins to call Rundeck Job, same will be used for Ansible Tower if we replace Rundeck.

See more
Replies (1)
Denis Gukov

I never use Tower, but I can recommend Ansible Semaphore as alternative to Rundeck. It is lightweight, easy to use and tailored for work with Ansible.

See more
Rogério R. Alcântara
Needs advice
on
AnsibleAnsibleChefChef
and
Puppet LabsPuppet Labs
in

Personal Dotfiles management

Given that they are all “configuration management” tools - meaning they are designed to deploy, configure and manage servers - what would be the simplest - and yet robust - solution to manage personal dotfiles - for n00bs.

Ideally, I reckon, it should:

  • be containerized (Docker?)
  • be versionable (Git)
  • ensure idempotency
  • allow full automation (tests, CI/CD, etc.)
  • be fully recoverable (Linux/ macOS)
  • be easier to setup/manage (as much as possible)

Does it make sense?

See more
Replies (3)
terry chay
Principal Engineer at RaiseMe · | 9 upvotes · 60.5K views
Recommends
on
AnsibleAnsible

I recommend whatever you are most comfortable with/whatever might already be installed in the system. Note that, for personal dotfiles, it does not need to be containerized or have full automation/testing. It just needs to handle multiple OS and platform and be idempotent. Git will handle the heavy lifting. Note that you'll have to separate out certain files like the private SSH keys and write your CM so that it will pull it from another store or assist in manually importing them.

I personally use Ansible since it is a serverless design and is in Python, which I prefer to Ruby. Saltstack was too new when I started to port my dotfile management scripts from shell into a configuration management tool. I think any of the above is fine.

See more
Recommends
on
SaltSalt

You should check out SaltStack. It's a lot more powerful than Puppet, Chef, & Ansible. If not Salt, then I would go Ansible. But stay away from Puppet & Chef. 10+ year user of Puppet, and 2+ year user of Chef.

See more
Attila Fulop
Management Advisor at artkonekt · | 3 upvotes · 24.2K views
Recommends

Chef is a definite no-go for me. I learned it the hard way (ie. got a few tasks in a prod system) and it took quite a lot to grasp it on an acceptable level. Ansible in turn is much more straightforward and much easier to test.

See more
Needs advice
on
AnsibleAnsibleChefChef
and
Puppet LabsPuppet Labs

I'm just getting started using Vagrant to help automate setting up local VMs to set up a Kubernetes cluster (development and experimentation only). (Yes, I do know about minikube)

I'm looking for a tool to help install software packages, setup users, etc..., on these VMs. I'm also fairly new to Ansible, Chef, and Puppet. What's a good one to start with to learn? I might decide to try all 3 at some point for my own curiosity.

The most important factors for me are simplicity, ease of use, shortest learning curve.

See more
Replies (2)
Recommends
on
AnsibleAnsible

I have been working with Puppet and Ansible. The reason why I prefer ansible is the distribution of it. Ansible is more lightweight and therefore more popular. This leads to situations, where you can get fully packaged applications for ansible (e.g. confluent) supported by the vendor, but only incomplete packages for Puppet.

The only advantage I would see with Puppet if someone wants to use Foreman. This is still better supported with Puppet.

See more
Gabriel Pa
Recommends
on
KubernetesKubernetes
at

If you are just starting out, might as well learn Kubernetes There's a lot of tools that come with Kube that make it easier to use and most importantly: you become cloud-agnostic. We use Ansible because it's a lot simpler than Chef or Puppet and if you use Docker Compose for your deployments you can re-use them with Kubernetes later when you migrate

See more
Decisions about Ansible and Puppet Labs
Hendrik Halkow

Terraform provides a cloud-provider agnostic way of provisioning cloud infrastructure while AWS CloudFormation is limited to AWS.

Pulumi is a great tool that provides similar features as Terraform, including advanced features like policy and cost management.

We see that Terraform has great support in the cloud community. For most cloud services we use, there is an official Terraform provider. We also believe in the declarative model of HCL, which is why we chose Terraform over Pulumi. However, we still keep an eye on Pulumi's progress.

Ansible is great for provisioning software and configuration within virtual machines, but we don't think that Ansible is the right tool for provisioning cloud infrastructure since it's built around the assumption that there is an inventory of remote machines. Terraform also supports more services that we use than Ansible.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More