Share your experience using Parallels Mac Management for Microsoft SCCM

We use public configurations for all nodes. This includes configurations for integrations, networks, packages, software, etc.

Puppet Enterprise is well-organized and structured. It is stable and can be managed easily. You can manage everything and organize everything in a very good way. Automation saves time and provides consistency over all the nodes.

Troubleshooting Puppet Enterprise can be somewhat challenging. You can make some changes to implement any ad hoc modifications. It might take a little longer.

I have been using Puppet Enterprise for around five years.

The product is stable.

The solution’s scalability is good. We are using 500 nodes.

We have used Ansible before.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes a couple of days to complete. Two people are required to deploy the solution.

If you have solid Linux systems and experience with Puppet, use the public version. However, if you are new to Puppet or lack Linux expertise, I would recommend starting and then considering migrating to the public version later.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Chef is primarily used for configuration management. For example, if you are managing a large number of servers (thousands or more), it is essential to ensure that the configurations across all servers are consistent. Otherwise, making any changes to the configurations would require writing a script to apply those changes across all the servers. Additionally, end-users may change configurations on multiple servers, leading to inconsistencies across different servers. To avoid this, configuration management is required.

We use Chef for this purpose by using a server-client mechanism. We apply changes to the Chef server, and every 30 to 40 minutes (depending on the configuration), Chef will verify whether the server has the required configuration. If not, it will revert to the required configuration automatically.

The solution could improve in managing role-based access. This would be helpful.

I have been using Chef for approximately four years.

The solution is stable.

Chef can be scaled as needed. The Chef server itself can scale but it depends on the available resources. You can upgrade specific resources to meet the demand. Similarly, with clients, you can add as many clients as you need. Again, this depends on the server resources. If the server has enough resources, it can handle the number of servers required to manage the infrastructure. Chef can be scaled to meet the needs of the infrastructure being managed.

The solution is good to manage multiple large infrastructures.

We can have 10 to 10,000 users using this solution and it manages them well.

I have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup of Chef is simple. The time it takes for the setup depends on what is included in the environment. However, it typically can be done in one day.

Learning to write cookbooks to manage infrastructure with Chef does have a learning curve, but it is steady and manageable. However, if you're looking for an alternative with an easier learning curve, I would suggest evaluating other options such as Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, and comparing them to Chef. Some alternatives have a much simpler learning curve than Chef.

I rate Chef a seven out of ten.