Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Chef vs Terraform: What are the differences?
Introduction: Chef and Terraform are both popular configuration management tools used in the DevOps ecosystem. However, they have key differences that set them apart in terms of their approach and functionality.
Language and Configuration: Chef primarily uses Ruby as its configuration language, allowing users to write recipes and cookbooks in Ruby syntax. On the other hand, Terraform uses HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL) or JSON for its configuration files. This difference in languages can impact the comfort level and ease of use for developers.
Granularity: Chef operates at a more granular level, allowing users to define configurations at the resource level, specifying the desired state for each resource. This enables fine-grained control over configurations and is well-suited for managing complex infrastructure. In contrast, Terraform operates at a higher level of abstraction, treating the infrastructure as a whole and focusing on the provision and orchestration of resources.
Scalability and Resource Management: Chef is primarily designed for managing server configurations and software installations on individual nodes. It excels at configuring and maintaining a large number of nodes in a scalable manner. In contrast, Terraform specializes in managing infrastructure as code and provisioning resources from cloud providers or infrastructure providers. It is especially suitable for managing cloud resources and supports multiple providers.
Human Readability: Chef recipes and cookbooks are generally more human-readable due to the use of Ruby as the configuration language. This makes it easier for developers and operators to understand, modify, and collaborate on configurations. On the other hand, Terraform's HCL configuration files may be less familiar to some developers, especially those who are not familiar with HashiCorp tools, but its syntax is relatively easy to learn for most users.
Procedural vs. Declarative: Chef follows a procedural approach where a series of ordered steps are executed to converge the current state of a system with the desired state. It relies on idempotent resource declarations and imperative logic. In contrast, Terraform follows a declarative approach, allowing users to describe the desired state of the infrastructure, and Terraform itself handles the provisioning and orchestration to achieve that state. This declarative nature simplifies infrastructure management and reduces the risk of configuration drift.
Community and Ecosystem: Both Chef and Terraform have active communities and ecosystems. However, Chef has been around for a longer time and has a more mature community and a vast number of pre-built cookbooks and resources available. Terraform, being a part of the larger HashiCorp ecosystem, benefits from its integration with other tools like Vault and Consul.
In Summary, Chef and Terraform differ in their configuration languages, granularity of control, scalability, human readability, approach (procedural vs. declarative), and community/ecosystem support. These differences make them suited for different use cases and preferences within the DevOps community.
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.
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.
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
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 Chef
- Dynamic and idempotent server configuration110
- Reusable components76
- Integration testing with Vagrant47
- Repeatable43
- Mock testing with Chefspec30
- Ruby14
- Can package cookbooks to guarantee repeatability8
- Works with AWS7
- Has marketplace where you get readymade cookbooks3
- Matured product with good community support3
- Less declarative more procedural2
- Open source configuration mgmt made easy(ish)2
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 Chef
Cons of Terraform
- Doesn't have full support to GKE1