In Business World#

Chef generally utilizes a centralized management approach while Ansible operates primarily in a decentralized manner:

• Chef (Centralized):

  • Chef requires a Chef Server which acts as a central repository for configurations (cookbooks, recipes, etc.).
  • Chef Clients installed on managed nodes communicate with the Chef Server to pull configurations and apply them.
  • This structure ensures consistent configurations across the infrastructure, with the Chef Server acting as the single source of truth

• Ansible (Decentralized):

  • Ansible uses a control node to push configurations or tasks directly to managed nodes using standard protocols like SSH or WinRM.
  • It does not require installing agents on managed nodes.
  • This decentralized approach allows for real-time updates and direct control over changes.

NOTE

Although

• Ansible can be used for centralized configurations by managing all configurations from a central control point.
• Chef offers a “Chef Solo” mode which is a decentralized, serverless mode, but it lacks the centralized data store and search capabilities of the Chef Server.

Chef’s centralized pull-based model provides more control and visibility over our infrastructure, making it a very good choice for 2C business. Ansible’s push-based non-centralized model offers greater flexibility and scalability, making it well-suited for large-scale, distributed environments like 2B business.

For Personal Project#

However, for personal provisioning, simplicity takes over everything. Bash and bats might just be more than enough. CHEF or Ansible could just be a waste of time and hours. Never switch to an over-kill technologies unless there is a real business need to do so (if our personal project someday becomes large and popular). “Would like to” on some new and cool technologies doesn’t necessarily justify the extra work spent shoveling sand.
Clarify our “whys” and the work will scope itself.¹