Ansible vs Zookeeper

Overview

Ansible

Stacks19.5K

Followers15.6K

Votes1.3K

GitHub Stars66.9K

Forks24.1K

Zookeeper

Stacks889

Followers1.0K

Votes43

Ansible vs Zookeeper: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between Ansible and Zookeeper, highlighting their key differences.

Scalability: Ansible is designed to manage tens of thousands of servers, making it suitable for large-scale deployments. On the other hand, Zookeeper is an orchestrator for distributed systems, offering high scalability and fault-tolerance.
Configuration Management: Ansible is primarily a configuration management tool, allowing system administrators to automate the deployment and management of software and configurations on multiple machines. Zookeeper, however, focuses on coordination and synchronization services in distributed systems.
Language Support: Ansible uses its own declarative language called Ansible Playbooks, which allows users to define their desired state of infrastructure and automation processes. On the contrary, Zookeeper does not have its own specific language; it provides APIs for various programming languages, including Java, C, and Python.
Use Case: Ansible is suitable for both infrastructure provisioning and software deployment, providing a simpler way to ensure consistency across multiple machines. Zookeeper, on the other hand, is commonly used for managing configuration information, naming services, and providing distributed synchronization for distributed systems.
Centralized vs Decentralized: Ansible follows a centralized model, where a controlling machine manages and orchestrates tasks on remote machines through SSH. In contrast, Zookeeper follows a decentralized model, where multiple server nodes collaborate to provide coordination and synchronization services.
Ease of Use: Ansible is known for its simplicity and ease of use. Its configuration files are human-readable and follow the YAML format. On the other hand, Zookeeper requires more technical expertise and understanding of distributed systems due to its complexity and the need to write code to interact with it.

In summary, Ansible focuses on configuration management and is suitable for infrastructure provisioning and software deployment, while Zookeeper is designed for coordination, synchronization, and management of distributed systems. Ansible is scalable, follows a centralized model, and uses its own declarative language, while Zookeeper provides language support through APIs, follows a decentralized model, and requires more technical expertise.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Ansible, Zookeeper

Anonymous

Sep 17, 2019

Needs advice

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.

329k views329k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Ansible	Zookeeper
Ansible is an IT automation tool. It can configure systems, deploy software, and orchestrate more advanced IT tasks such as continuous deployments or zero downtime rolling updates. Ansible’s goals are foremost those of simplicity and maximum ease of use.	A centralized service for maintaining configuration information, naming, providing distributed synchronization, and providing group services. All of these kinds of services are used in some form or another by distributed applications.
Ansible's natural automation language allows sysadmins, developers, and IT managers to complete automation projects in hours, not weeks.;Ansible uses SSH by default instead of requiring agents everywhere. Avoid extra open ports, improve security, eliminate "managing the management", and reclaim CPU cycles.;Ansible automates app deployment, configuration management, workflow orchestration, and even cloud provisioning all from one system.	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars 66.9K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 24.1K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 19.5K	Stacks 889
Followers 15.6K	Followers 1.0K
Votes 1.3K	Votes 43
Pros & Cons
Pros 284 Agentless 210 Great configuration 199 Simple 176 Powerful 155 Easy to learn Cons 8 Dangerous 5 Hard to install 3 Doesn't Run on Windows 3 Bloated 3 Backward compatibility	Pros 11 High performance ,easy to generate node specific config 8 Kafka support 8 Java 5 Spring Boot Support 3 Supports extensive distributed IPC
Integrations
Nexmo Stackdriver VMware vSphere Docker OpenStack Amazon EC2 Rackspace Cloud Servers Google Compute Engine New Relic PagerDuty	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Ansible, Zookeeper?

Chef

Chef enables you to manage and scale cloud infrastructure with no downtime or interruptions. Freely move applications and configurations from one cloud to another. Chef is integrated with all major cloud providers including Amazon EC2, VMWare, IBM Smartcloud, Rackspace, OpenStack, Windows Azure, HP Cloud, Google Compute Engine, Joyent Cloud and others.

Terraform

With Terraform, you describe your complete infrastructure as code, even as it spans multiple service providers. Your servers may come from AWS, your DNS may come from CloudFlare, and your database may come from Heroku. Terraform will build all these resources across all these providers in parallel.

Capistrano

Capistrano is a remote server automation tool. It supports the scripting and execution of arbitrary tasks, and includes a set of sane-default deployment workflows.

Puppet Labs

Puppet is an automated administrative engine for your Linux, Unix, and Windows systems and performs administrative tasks (such as adding users, installing packages, and updating server configurations) based on a centralized specification.

Consul

Consul is a tool for service discovery and configuration. Consul is distributed, highly available, and extremely scalable.

Salt

Salt is a new approach to infrastructure management. Easy enough to get running in minutes, scalable enough to manage tens of thousands of servers, and fast enough to communicate with them in seconds. Salt delivers a dynamic communication bus for infrastructures that can be used for orchestration, remote execution, configuration management and much more.

Fabric

Fabric is a Python (2.5-2.7) library and command-line tool for streamlining the use of SSH for application deployment or systems administration tasks. It provides a basic suite of operations for executing local or remote shell commands (normally or via sudo) and uploading/downloading files, as well as auxiliary functionality such as prompting the running user for input, or aborting execution.

Eureka

Eureka is a REST (Representational State Transfer) based service that is primarily used in the AWS cloud for locating services for the purpose of load balancing and failover of middle-tier servers.

AWS OpsWorks

Start from templates for common technologies like Ruby, Node.JS, PHP, and Java, or build your own using Chef recipes to install software packages and perform any task that you can script. AWS OpsWorks can scale your application using automatic load-based or time-based scaling and maintain the health of your application by detecting failed instances and replacing them. You have full control of deployments and automation of each component

etcd

etcd is a distributed key value store that provides a reliable way to store data across a cluster of machines. It’s open-source and available on GitHub. etcd gracefully handles master elections during network partitions and will tolerate machine failure, including the master.

Related Comparisons

Ansible vs Zookeeper: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code provides a comparison between Ansible and Zookeeper, highlighting their key differences.

Scalability: Ansible is designed to manage tens of thousands of servers, making it suitable for large-scale deployments. On the other hand, Zookeeper is an orchestrator for distributed systems, offering high scalability and fault-tolerance.
Configuration Management: Ansible is primarily a configuration management tool, allowing system administrators to automate the deployment and management of software and configurations on multiple machines. Zookeeper, however, focuses on coordination and synchronization services in distributed systems.
Language Support: Ansible uses its own declarative language called Ansible Playbooks, which allows users to define their desired state of infrastructure and automation processes. On the contrary, Zookeeper does not have its own specific language; it provides APIs for various programming languages, including Java, C, and Python.
Use Case: Ansible is suitable for both infrastructure provisioning and software deployment, providing a simpler way to ensure consistency across multiple machines. Zookeeper, on the other hand, is commonly used for managing configuration information, naming services, and providing distributed synchronization for distributed systems.
Centralized vs Decentralized: Ansible follows a centralized model, where a controlling machine manages and orchestrates tasks on remote machines through SSH. In contrast, Zookeeper follows a decentralized model, where multiple server nodes collaborate to provide coordination and synchronization services.
Ease of Use: Ansible is known for its simplicity and ease of use. Its configuration files are human-readable and follow the YAML format. On the other hand, Zookeeper requires more technical expertise and understanding of distributed systems due to its complexity and the need to write code to interact with it.

Ansible vs Zookeeper

Overview

Ansible vs Zookeeper: What are the differences?