Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Google Cloud Deployment Manager vs Pulumi vs Terraform: What are the differences?
Language Support: Google Cloud Deployment Manager uses configuration files written in YAML or Jinja to deploy resources on Google Cloud Platform. In contrast, Pulumi allows users to write infrastructure code using familiar programming languages such as Python, TypeScript, and Go, providing more flexibility and ease of use. Terraform, on the other hand, uses its own declarative language called HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL), which is tailored specifically for infrastructure as code tasks.
State Management: Google Cloud Deployment Manager relies on Google Cloud Storage to store the deployment state, which can lead to potential issues when managing state files in large-scale deployments. Pulumi provides a centralized architecture for state management, allowing users to store state securely in their preferred backend like VCS or cloud storage. Similarly, Terraform also offers built-in features for state management, supporting state locking and remote state storage to prevent conflicts and ensure consistency in infrastructure changes.
Provider Ecosystem: Google Cloud Deployment Manager is specific to Google Cloud Platform, offering native support for GCP resources and services. In comparison, Pulumi supports multiple cloud providers, enabling users to manage resources across different cloud environments with a unified workflow. Terraform boasts an extensive provider ecosystem with support for various cloud providers, infrastructure technologies, and third-party services, making it a versatile choice for multi-cloud and hybrid cloud deployments.
Execution Model: Google Cloud Deployment Manager follows a declarative model where users define the desired state of the infrastructure, and the tool handles the provisioning and configuration automatically. Pulumi embraces a modern imperative model, allowing for more dynamic and fine-grained control over resource creation and management through imperative coding techniques. Terraform combines both imperative and declarative paradigms in its execution model, offering a compromise between simplicity and flexibility in defining infrastructure workflows.
Community and Support: Google Cloud Deployment Manager, being a Google-owned tool, has a limited community compared to Pulumi and Terraform, which have active and supportive communities of users and contributors. Pulumi's community-driven approach fosters rapid development, updates, and community modules, enhancing the tool's usability and extensibility. Terraform's vibrant community offers a wide range of resources, modules, and best practices for infrastructure automation, making it a dependable choice for diverse infrastructure requirements.
In Summary, the key differences between Google Cloud Deployment Manager, Pulumi, and Terraform lie in their language support, state management capabilities, provider ecosystems, execution models, and community support, catering to different preferences and requirements in managing cloud infrastructure efficiently.
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 Google Cloud Deployment Manager
- Automates infrastructure deployments2
- Fast deploy and update1
- Infrastracture as a code1
- Easy to deploy for GCP1
Pros of Pulumi
- Infrastructure as code with less pain8
- Best-in-class kubernetes support4
- Simple3
- Can use many languages3
- Great CLI2
- Can be self-hosted2
- Multi-cloud2
- Built-in secret management1
Pros of Terraform
- Infrastructure as code121
- Declarative syntax73
- Planning45
- Simple28
- Parallelism24
- Well-documented8
- Cloud agnostic8
- It's like coding your infrastructure in simple English6
- Immutable infrastructure6
- Platform agnostic5
- Extendable4
- Automation4
- Automates infrastructure deployments4
- Portability4
- Lightweight2
- Scales to hundreds of hosts2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Google Cloud Deployment Manager
- Only using in GCP1
Cons of Pulumi
Cons of Terraform
- Doesn't have full support to GKE1