HashiCorp Terraform Reviews

We use this solution to make our migration plan and utilize the images of Azure, GCP, and EC2 instances for our infrastructure. We have basic applications that the bank requires, so we use Terraform to expedite the initial infrastructure preparation. We also created a couple of common modules that we can use in production, development, and test environments.

The environment is very good. That's awesome.

At present, they only support around 300 applications and services from different clouds. They should aim to support more than a thousand to stay ahead of their competitors.

The product can integrate and utilize more services from different competitors. Currently, their commands are quite similar to Kubernetes, which we use in our CI/CD pipeline. Also, they should consider incorporating Windows command line, like PowerShell. 

Moreover, they should involve more technologies instead of just being providers for managing infrastructure; they could become active players in the field.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years. 

The solution is pretty stable. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. You just need to provide the description and the value for that particular setup. You don't have to learn or by heart remember all those commands. It's really easy. For example, if I want to create a DNS entry, I can use the data as well as resource parameters for the same.

So, that sort of flexibility allows me to use it differently, depending on my needs. When I use it as data, I can redirect my DNS to somewhere else because I'm using GCP as my service provider for my on-premise website. So, I route the incoming requests via GCP using load balancers. I use data as a resource for this. When I'm using Azure DNS, I utilize a resource command for the same in the data.

We have deployed it both on cloud and on-premises. 

The solution is comparatively cheaper than the others.

If you want to stay on top, you should be involved not only in maintaining your current infrastructure but also in adapting to changes. For example, if HashiCorp incorporates certain Linux commands, it will attract more people from the infrastructure field, especially those with a Linux background.

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

My company uses HashiCorp Terraform for cloud infrastructure provisioning. HashiCorp Terraform is the only IaC tool we use in our company.

The most valuable features of the solution are its simplicity of HCL language, its compatibility with multiple cloud providers, and its modules like the open source modules available, especially considering the fact that I work mainly on AWS. I believe that HashiCorp Terraform is one of the best products available in the market for my company's use cases. HashiCorp Terraform is also a feasible solution in terms of its availability of cloud resources.

I know a UI tool is available in the licensed version of HashiCorp Terraform. From a user's perspective, it would be great if a UI tool is made available in the open source version as well, but I don't think it may be introduced because of the high costs for it announced by HashiCorp in its licensed version.

HashiCorp Terraform can improve backward compatibility. From users' perspective, migration from one version to another is okay. The migration from an older version to a newer version is a big challenge in HashiCorp Terraform. We tried to fix the migration issues multiple times at our end and saw that some will not be compatible sometimes while, at times, certain aspects will be compatible with the new version.

I have been using HashiCorp Terraform for four years. I use HashiCorp Terraform v0.12 or v0.13. I use the open-source version of the tool for my company's internal usage.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

My organization has around 30 to 40 users of the solution.

The simplicity or complexity of the initial setup depends on the number of accounts involved in the setup phase on the cloud, along with the resources to be managed. Based on my experience, one won't find HashiCorp Terraform's setup difficult if the configuration and management are in place.

The solution is deployed on the public cloud. I know people who use the solution on private and hybrid clouds.

For those users with their infrastructure on the cloud, I would say that Terraform is a tool they can use immediately, even though other tools like Ansible are in the market. At some point, one may feel that Ansible lacks efficiency in a cloud infrastructure, which is a difficulty one may face when using Terraform in a bigger infrastructure. I would say that the combination of Ansible and Terraform is the best.

When following complex methods, Ansible is the best option. If you do too much configuration on the standalone file, then if not today, then tomorrow you might be stranded in a situation where you might not be able to edit or modify the configuration, especially when some improvements related to certain features have to be included in the product or your product's existing portal. It will be very tough to deal with, especially when it will be a single file with thousands of clients, making it a tough job to search. So you need to make sure that code reusability is properly using in your terraform code base.

I rate HashiCorp Terraform a nine out of ten.

We use HashiCorp Terraform for Infrastructure as Code (IaC).

The most valuable feature of HashiCorp Terraform is the custom modules. The custom modules are built for each piece, like network and security, based on how the customers are. Then, we can tie them together, centralize them easily, and build them.

HashiCorp Terraform state management could be improved to be used efficiently with multi-users. Even though there are logs, there are always issues I've seen with people manipulating the TerraForm state. We cannot work efficiently with the solution if the state is incorrect. Due to certain reasons, if I have to change some piece of some resource, I cannot change it. I have to destroy the whole thing and then build a new one.

I have been using HashiCorp Terraform for three years.

HashiCorp Terraform is a stable solution. I rate HashiCorp Terraform an eight or nine out of ten for stability.

Around 20 users are using HashiCorp Terraform in our organization.

I rate HashiCorp Terraform an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

HashiCorp Terraform's initial setup is simple. Especially with TerraForm Cloud, you don't have to do anything since it's a SaaS platform. Also, TerraForm Enterprise is easy to install.

HashiCorp Terraform's deployment is very easy and doesn't take much time.

We have seen a return on investment with HashiCorp Terraform.

HashiCorp Terraform's pricing depends on the way people use it. Not everyone uses the solution the way HashiCorp recommends to use it. HashiCorp Terraform goes by workspaces, and workspaces are more expensive than nodes. The nodes are cheaper.

People implement the solution in different ways. So you can use the solution with less money and make it cheaper, but that's not the recommended way. If you use the solution according to the recommended way by HashiCorp, it is more expensive.

I am using the latest version of HashiCorp Terraform.

I recommend users build the framework and the modules correctly right from the beginning. Then, build the workspace as recommended by HashiCorp. According to HashiCorp's recommendation, one workspace should exist per application or environment. That's how people need to build it.

Then, modularize everything and make custom modules for the organizations. Especially things that stay out of the application, like security, network, and compute, should be in separate modules. Later, they can be brought into the application.

Overall, I rate HashiCorp Terraform an eight out of ten.

It enables us to create our cloud implementations without a technician needing to sign on to the cloud.

We are able to do multiple hybrid cloud implementations for clients that need to support Azure and AWS. 

It allows for the abstraction of the work away from the developer into automated processes. 

The reuse simplification is very good. 

It can enforce DevOps. 

It is stable. 

Technical support has been fine. 

The workflow and automation could be better.

The user interface could be easier for non-technical people. 

There's a learning curve involved with the setup; however, it is low to medium. 

I've used the solution for a long time. I've used it for 12 years at least. 

The stability is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

It's not a customer-facing solution. We've never had an issue with it. However, it is not a primary concern of ours in terms of the ability to expand. 

Most business analysts and sometimes architects use the solution. We have 1700 people in our organization, and we are doing 100 projects at a time. Almost all of the projects require the use of the product. Half of the people are engaged in the solution in one way or another. We have about 750 people using it. 

Technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is very simple for the most part. 

The pricing is expensive. It's more for enterprise implementations. The cost is above average in general. 

We're a consulting company. 

I'd advise other users to automate to the greatest extent possible to get the best ROI.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten, even though the workflow is not the strongest on the market. 

HashiCorp Terraform is a system solution that allows for infrastructure to be managed as code. allows for the efficient creation and management of infrastructure by packaging everything together in one package. This includes the networking, security, and encryption for Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) deployment.

By using HashiCorp Terraform, the infrastructure is all in one place and can be easily tested and checked for security vulnerabilities before deployment.

The valuable features of HashiCorp Terraform are the infrastructure can be written, shared, and collaborated on using code, which speeds up deployment. Additionally, bugs and issues can be fixed in the code and redeployed, making it less risky. It is a more efficient method compared to the traditional approach of writing scripts to set up infrastructure.

The infrastructure is transparent, as it is stored in a source control system, such as Bitbucket, making it easy for all team members to access and review. Furthermore, Terraform enables the creation of a deployment pipeline using tools, such as Atlantis, which automates the process of scanning and deploying the code. This streamlines the deployment process and adds features, such as auditing, risk management, and security scanning to the deployment process. Terraform provides a more organized and secure way of managing infrastructure, compared to the traditional ad-hoc method.

HashiCorp Terraform is an open-source tool that relies on external developers to create plugins to expand its capabilities. However, this approach can be problematic as not all plugins are created by professionals and some may have security vulnerabilities. In the case of GKE, Google has created a solid plugin, but for other services, one must search for plugins on the HashiCorp Terraform registry, which can be hit or miss, as many plugins are created by students or hobbyists, who may not continue to maintain or update them. This model of open-sourced plugins may not be the most reliable or secure way of expanding the tool's capabilities. 

It is possible that when using a plugin with HashiCorp Terraform, there may be security issues or the plugin may become outdated in the future. HashiCorp Terraform only takes responsibility for the infrastructure and code of the program itself, not the plugin. This is a point of concern as it is the responsibility of the user to police and manage the plugins, which can be a significant overhead. Additionally, the solution requires plugins for modules, so without them, Terraform cannot communicate with certain resources.

To improve this, it would be beneficial if HashiCorp Terraform had a system in place where they certify and test the plugins. This would take the burden off of users and reduce the cost of using the solution. The current system relies heavily on open-source plugins which may not be fully developed, lack features, or may not be secure. It is not uncommon for users to have to fork or manage these plugins themselves, which can be a significant undertaking.

The module system in the solution is not the best, as it forces users to rely on third-party developers who may not be qualified from a security or engineering standpoint. This can create a problem for users as they may not have access to all the features they need, and may have to fork or manage the plugins themselves. HashiCorp Terraform, as the creators of this system, should take more responsibility for the management and security of these third-party plugins.

The use of open-source code, such as that used in this solution, can present issues as it may not always be fully supported or maintained by its creators. This publicly traded, multi-billion dollar company, may not want to take full responsibility for the plugins and modules that are created by third parties. This can be problematic for users, as they may have to police the plugins themselves to ensure they are secure and functional. Furthermore, while some companies such as Google may have the resources to create their own Terraform plugin and take responsibility for it, many other companies and developers do not have the same resources and may not take responsibility for maintaining their own plugins. This can lead to a broken system where users may have to pay extra to have broken plugins fixed. Overall, this highlights the need for a better system of support and maintenance for open-source code and plugins.

I have been using HashiCorp Terraform for approximately four years.

The solution is scalable. It is well suited to managing complex cloud environments, such as Google Kubernetes Engine, that require various services and configurations.

HashiCorp Terraform is a cost-effective solution.

HashiCorp Terraform has issues with testing and the modules. Overall, the concept is great. What they did works well. However, the extension to it is not the greatest.

I rate HashiCorp Terraform a seven out of ten.

We have about 50 users.

With Terraform, you don't need to understand the console of your cloud providers. You only need to understand how Terraform works, and you manage your infrastructure tools in Terraform.

In Terraform, there's a file called main.tf, where everything starts. In the main.tf, you need to specify the provider you're using. For example, maybe you want to use GCP, but you don't want to work on GCP. That's where you will list everything you need. It's like a key for you to access GCP. 

Sometimes, it can be challenging to undo. Let's say I'm using the provider here, and you want to use it on your site over there. You have to delete the provider you are using before switching providers. It doesn't sync well. The providers don't sync well. And also the documentation sometimes, they need to work on the documentation of Terraform. They're not concise.

The error logging could be better. Sometimes, when you try to set something on Terraform, it gives you an error, but you don't understand how the error has been logged. 

I started using Terraform two years ago.

Terraform is one of the most stable products HashiCorp provides

Terraform is scalable.

Terraform is an open-source product, so we rely on documentation. I rate the Terraform documentation five out of 10. It should provide more examples about the way you should write some resources or models.

Setting up Terraform is straightforward. You only need to deploy the binary. I rate it 10 out of 10 for ease of setup. 

I rate Terraform seven out of 10. There aren't many products that do what Terraform does. It's easy to use and set up.

A primary use case of Terraform is for deploying a VM on a cloud using Terraform script. If I then want to deploy a third-party toolset, a solution such as Aviatrix can create an overlay on top of each of the cloud providers and you can connect the clouds together. I'm a solutions architect and we are customers of HashiCorp. 

The solution has made a huge difference to us because the automation it provides has given us improved cost efficiency, security and saved many man-hours. It's created once and then that's pretty much it. When you next want to deploy something, you run it and it deploys. 

Terraform removes the manual process; you run it for a specific purpose, destroy it when you're done, and it removes all the associated components. The other good feature is that Terraform is idempotent; if something is already out there, it's not going to try to duplicate another installation of that environment.

One of the other major features of terraform is in its ability to act as a Disaster Recovery tool. Since terraform is an Infrastructure-As-A-Service tool, it can be used as part of the rest of the DR toolset to restore affected infrastructure to its original state without any variation. 

The Terraform manifests can be stored in a version control repository separate from the application code base and can be a single source of truth for an organization's infrastructure. The automation and the efficiency that Terraform brings to the SDLC lifecycle adds to the overall integrity of the infrastructure and provides a value added to the DevSecOps workflow.   

I've noticed that although Terraform is very good at deploying, it lacks in running script. For example, if you wanted to run multiple deployments such as a VM, and then install different softwares and create a full-blown infrastructure within that virtual machine, Terraform would probably lack certain features. I don't think it's very robust in running scripts or going from one sequence to another. You're likely to end up running a huge Terraform code base, where you'd probably get lost in terms of knowing where things are coming from and where they're going. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable without too many bugs. If we're deploying on top of a current deployment, there can be some issues and that could be improved. If you need a fully idempotent solution, you deploy your infrastructure without touching any existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, Terraform fails when it finds an existing infrastructure and things become complicated. In terms of stability, this is probably one of the biggest deficiencies of Terraform. 

HashiCorp provides very good documentation so we haven't needed to contact technical support. They also have GitHub repository against each of those tutorials, so we can actually clone and tweak those according to our needs. There's also a large open-source community out there and a lot of blogs that complement the documentation. 

Deployment is just about downloading the plug-in. To run it requires each of the cloud environments on the CLI tool downloaded so that they both work together with all the credentials in place so that it can connect to each of the clouds. We are a small organization and still experimenting with Terraform so we only have one dedicated person helping out with the solution. That said, all of the team members are more or less skilled with Terraform.

We're definitely seeing cost savings from a man-hour point of view but I can't quantify it. 

We are using the free version of Terraform. Terraform Cloud has some kind of pricing and enterprise-level model which we haven't moved to yet. I think  Terraform has a pretty reasonable pricing structure. It allows the open-source community to use it as they please, so I'm pretty happy about it.

AWS has a code solution called CloudFormation which I think is a little slower than Terraform although I think CloudFormation is probably a bit more secure and foolproof.

This is a solid product and one of the leaders in this space. Terraform is used across the board as an Infrastructure-as-Code solution. 

There could be some improvements so I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

I use the solution to provision cloud resources on Azure, AWS, and GCP platforms.

What I like best is how easy the tool is to use. The HashiCorp Terraform language syntax is simple to learn. The Terraform.io registry feature is very useful - we can refer to our code and use pre-created modules posted there.

One area for improvement is real-time syncing with the actual infrastructure. Currently, you have to run CLI commands to sync the state file.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the tool an eight out of ten. Sometimes, it can break down when handling too many resource creations at once due to dependency issues. 

I've contacted the support team a few times when getting errors.

Positive

The initial setup and deployment are also easy, especially when using the tool's code to deploy to cloud platforms.

The tool is worth the money. 

While it's easy to learn, you need experience with the HashiCorp Terraform language syntax to use it. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.