Share your experience using Plutora

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.

You can easily integrate AWS CodeDeploy with multiple services. For example, I can use the solution to access repositories and deploy images in the Kubernetes cluster. That will help me deploy my application seamlessly, providing high availability and resilience.

People face difficulties creating pipelines in AWS CodeDeploy. AWS should provide its own templates in the console so that I don't need to go anywhere else to get the template for AWS CodeDeploy or AWS CodeBuild.

I have been using AWS CodeDeploy for around one and a half years.

Since the AWS community is vast, we can get answers to any issue easily. AWS provides a lot of community support.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is easy.

Since we are using a dedicated AWS environment, the solution's pricing is fine.

Our main priority is to follow best practices as much as possible. If we do that, we can achieve our goals with the help of DevOps. For example, we don't keep things hard-coded.

Currently, our repository is on AWS CodeCommit. So, we are integrating everything dedicatedly into the AWS environment. We're building our codes with the help of AWS CodeBuild. We are providing all permissions for AWS CodeCommit and AWS CodeBuild. We are deploying those things with the help of AWS CodeDeploy.

Recommending the solution to other users depends on their requirements. If someone wants a dedicated AWS environment, they can choose AWS CodeDeploy.

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