Share your experience using webMethods DevOps Edition

The easiest route - we'll conduct a 15 minute phone interview and write up the review for you.

Use our online form to submit your review. It's quick and you can post anonymously.

Your review helps others learn about this solution
The PeerSpot community is built upon trust and sharing with peers.
It's good for your career
In today's digital world, your review shows you have valuable expertise.
You can influence the market
Vendors read their reviews and make improvements based on your feedback.
Examples of the 83,000+ reviews on PeerSpot:

Arun S . - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Consultant at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5
Useful for large infrastructure, reliable, but steep learning cureve
Pros and Cons
  • "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 could improve in managing role-based access. This would be helpful."

What is our primary use case?

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.

What needs improvement?

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

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Chef for approximately four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

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.

How are customer service and support?

I have not contacted technical support.

How was the initial setup?

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.

What other advice do I have?

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.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Prince_Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Salesforce Release Engineer at Cognizant
Real User
Top 10
Helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments and has good security model
Pros and Cons
  • "The tool helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments. It is very easy to learn. Its security model is good."
  • "GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."

What is our primary use case?

I use the tool for deployment. 

What is most valuable?

The tool helps to integrate CI/CD pipeline deployments. It is very easy to learn. Its security model is good. 

What needs improvement?

GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with the product for six years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I haven't encountered any bugs in GitLab. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In our company, I estimate that around 30 people use GitLab, primarily for branching and repository management.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Our organization decided to use GitLab because it's easy to use, and its user interface is more intuitive than other tools.

How was the initial setup?

The tool's deployment is easy. 

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend using GitLab. It provides a repository and API, allowing you to create deployment pipelines. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate