Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CloudFormation vs Google Cloud Deployment Manager: What are the differences?
AWS CloudFormation and Google Cloud Deployment Manager are two popular infrastructure-as-code (IaC) tools used for managing cloud resources. Below are the key differences between these two services.
Cloud Provider Integration: One major difference between AWS CloudFormation and Google Cloud Deployment Manager is the cloud provider integration they offer. AWS CloudFormation is specific to AWS and integrates tightly with the AWS ecosystem, providing seamless resource provisioning and management within the AWS platform. On the other hand, Google Cloud Deployment Manager is designed specifically for Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and provides similar capabilities within the GCP environment.
Syntax and Configuration Language: AWS CloudFormation uses JSON or YAML templates as its syntax and configuration language. These templates define the desired state of the infrastructure, including resources, dependencies, and configurations. In contrast, Google Cloud Deployment Manager uses YAML or Python configurations to define and provision resources. This difference in syntax and configuration language allows users to choose their preferred format based on their familiarity and comfort.
Resource Coverage: Another significant difference lies in the extent of resource coverage provided by AWS CloudFormation and Google Cloud Deployment Manager. AWS CloudFormation offers broad coverage for AWS resources, including various EC2 instances, RDS databases, S3 buckets, and more. In contrast, Google Cloud Deployment Manager has a narrower coverage, focusing primarily on GCP resources like VM instances, Cloud Storage buckets, and Cloud SQL databases.
Template Reusability: AWS CloudFormation provides the concept of nested stacks, allowing users to reuse templates by referencing them within other templates. This enables modularization and reduces duplication of infrastructure code. Google Cloud Deployment Manager lacks a native feature for template reuse, although users can achieve similar functionality by separating resource configurations into reusable YAML or Python files.
Implementation Approach: AWS CloudFormation takes an imperative approach to infrastructure provisioning, where it largely relies on manual resource creation and configuration statements. In contrast, Google Cloud Deployment Manager follows a declarative approach, where users specify the desired state of the infrastructure, and the tool automatically handles resource creation and configuration. This difference in implementation can influence the overall user experience and preference.
Maturity and Ecosystem: AWS CloudFormation has been in the market for a longer time and has a mature ecosystem, with extensive community support, a rich library of pre-built templates, and a comprehensive documentation base. Google Cloud Deployment Manager, being a relatively newer service, has a growing ecosystem that is not as extensive as AWS CloudFormation. However, with the popularity of GCP increasing, the ecosystem is continuously expanding.
In summary, CloudFormation is an AWS service that uses declarative YAML or JSON templates for defining and provisioning AWS infrastructure, while Google Cloud Deployment Manager achieves similar goals on Google Cloud Platform using YAML or Python templates.
Ok, so first - AWS Copilot is CloudFormation under the hood, but the way it works results in you not thinking about CFN anymore. AWS found the right balance with Copilot - it's insanely simple to setup production-ready multi-account environment with many services inside, with CI/CD out of the box etc etc. It's pretty new, but even now it was enough to launch Transcripto, which uses may be a dozen of different AWS services, all bound together by Copilot.
Because Pulumi uses real programming languages, you can actually write abstractions for your infrastructure code, which is incredibly empowering. You still 'describe' your desired state, but by having a programming language at your fingers, you can factor out patterns, and package it up for easier consumption.
We use Terraform to manage AWS cloud environment for the project. It is pretty complex, largely static, security-focused, and constantly evolving.
Terraform provides descriptive (declarative) way of defining the target configuration, where it can work out the dependencies between configuration elements and apply differences without re-provisioning the entire cloud stack.
AdvantagesTerraform is vendor-neutral in a way that it is using a common configuration language (HCL) with plugins (providers) for multiple cloud and service providers.
Terraform keeps track of the previous state of the deployment and applies incremental changes, resulting in faster deployment times.
Terraform allows us to share reusable modules between projects. We have built an impressive library of modules internally, which makes it very easy to assemble a new project from pre-fabricated building blocks.
DisadvantagesSoftware is imperfect, and Terraform is no exception. Occasionally we hit annoying bugs that we have to work around. The interaction with any underlying APIs is encapsulated inside 3rd party Terraform providers, and any bug fixes or new features require a provider release. Some providers have very poor coverage of the underlying APIs.
Terraform is not great for managing highly dynamic parts of cloud environments. That part is better delegated to other tools or scripts.
Terraform state may go out of sync with the target environment or with the source configuration, which often results in painful reconciliation.
I personally am not a huge fan of vendor lock in for multiple reasons:
- I've seen cost saving moves to the cloud end up costing a fortune and trapping companies due to over utilization of cloud specific features.
- I've seen S3 failures nearly take down half the internet.
- I've seen companies get stuck in the cloud because they aren't built cloud agnostic.
I choose to use terraform for my cloud provisioning for these reasons:
- It's cloud agnostic so I can use it no matter where I am.
- It isn't difficult to use and uses a relatively easy to read language.
- It tests infrastructure before running it, and enables me to see and keep changes up to date.
- It runs from the same CLI I do most of my CM work from.
Context: I wanted to create an end to end IoT data pipeline simulation in Google Cloud IoT Core and other GCP services. I never touched Terraform meaningfully until working on this project, and it's one of the best explorations in my development career. The documentation and syntax is incredibly human-readable and friendly. I'm used to building infrastructure through the google apis via Python , but I'm so glad past Sung did not make that decision. I was tempted to use Google Cloud Deployment Manager, but the templates were a bit convoluted by first impression. I'm glad past Sung did not make this decision either.
Solution: Leveraging Google Cloud Build Google Cloud Run Google Cloud Bigtable Google BigQuery Google Cloud Storage Google Compute Engine along with some other fun tools, I can deploy over 40 GCP resources using Terraform!
Check Out My Architecture: CLICK ME
Check out the GitHub repo attached
Pros of AWS CloudFormation
- Automates infrastructure deployments43
- Declarative infrastructure and deployment21
- No more clicking around13
- Any Operative System you want3
- Atomic3
- Infrastructure as code3
- CDK makes it truly infrastructure-as-code1
- Automates Infrastructure Deployment1
- K8s0
Pros of Google Cloud Deployment Manager
- Automates infrastructure deployments2
- Fast deploy and update1
- Infrastracture as a code1
- Easy to deploy for GCP1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CloudFormation
- Brittle4
- No RBAC and policies in templates2
Cons of Google Cloud Deployment Manager
- Only using in GCP1