Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Salt vs Terraform: What are the differences?
Salt and Terraform are both popular infrastructure management tools used in DevOps and cloud computing. Let's explore the key differences between them.
Language and Approach: Salt is mainly written in Python and uses an imperative/procedural approach, allowing for more flexibility and fine-grained control over configuration management. On the other hand, Terraform is written in Go and follows a declarative approach, enabling infrastructure provisioning and management through reusable modules and resources.
Focus and Scope: Salt is primarily designed for configuration management and remote execution, offering features like state management, remote command execution, and cloud orchestration. It provides more comprehensive capabilities for managing system configurations and automating system administration tasks. Whereas, Terraform is focused on infrastructure provisioning and orchestration, allowing users to define, provision, and manage cloud resources and infrastructure as code across multiple cloud platforms and providers.
Configuration Language: Salt uses a YAML-based configuration language known as Salt State files, making it easy to define and manage system state and configurations. It provides a simple syntax and powerful expressions for managing various aspects of systems. In contrast, Terraform uses its own configuration language called HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL) or JSON, which is tailor-made for infrastructure provisioning and modeling cloud resources. HCL is designed to be human-readable and allows users to define resources, providers, and variables in a concise and structured manner.
Supported Platforms: Salt supports a wide range of operating systems and platforms, including Linux, Windows, macOS, and various cloud providers such as AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. It offers a high degree of interoperability and can integrate with existing infrastructure easily. Terraform, on the other hand, provides support for numerous cloud providers like AWS, Azure, Google Cloud Platform, as well as other services like DNS, databases, networking, and more. It caters to multi-cloud and hybrid cloud scenarios with its versatile and extensible provider ecosystem.
Ecosystem and Community: Both Salt and Terraform have thriving communities and ecosystems that provide extensive support, documentation, and modules. SaltStack, the organization behind Salt, provides a rich set of modules, extensions, and community-contributed formulas to enable easier system management and automation. Terraform benefits from the strong HashiCorp ecosystem, including other tools like Vault, Consul, and Nomad. It also has a large community-driven registry of Terraform modules and providers for popular cloud platforms and services.
In summary, Salt offers more flexibility and fine-grained control for configuration management and system administration, while Terraform focuses on infrastructure provisioning and orchestration across multi-cloud environments. Both tools have robust ecosystems and communities that provide support and extensibility options.
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 Salt
- Flexible46
- Easy30
- Remote execution27
- Enormously flexible24
- Great plugin API12
- Python10
- Extensible5
- Scalable3
- nginx2
- Vagrant provisioner1
- HipChat1
- Best IaaC1
- Automatisation1
- Parallel Execution1
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 Salt
- Bloated1
- Dangerous1
- No immutable infrastructure1
Cons of Terraform
- Doesn't have full support to GKE1