Ansible vs Consul

• Imperative orchestration works well. There is no resource ordination issues like there can be with Puppet or Chef.
• It is easy to get started and start iterating on plays, books, roles.
• The docker and rax resources are very robust and compelling. I hope these continue to develop and flourish.

Read full review

• Consul makes keeping our DNS up to date very simple and easy.
• Configuration changes are a snap when Consul is involved.
• All of our services register easy and we sleep better knowing Consul is on the job.

Read full review

• There are conflicting stories on how best to organize a role's structure. Old documentation exists, and as Ansible has grown directions have pivoted a bit. This should be trued up.
• Pull-based Ansible is a compelling use case. Ansible should come up with a pattern which supports this configuration.
• How to integrate ServerSpec infrastructure integration testing is sorely lacking. Ansible should curate practices and docs around this.

Read full review

• We would like to see more out of the box training for Consul use.
• Best practice examples would be nice for routing.
• The agent could be easier to run.

Read full review

• Ansible makes it easier to ship code as the orchestrator of the release.
• Ansible enables clear blue-green release processes.
• Ansible moves fast and breaks the runtime with regressions. We rightly pin dependencies hard to insulate ourselves from unintentional breaking changes.

Read full review

• Consul has paid for itself just in monitoring and keeping us notified alone.
• Configuration changes can be monitored and will make even your Security team smile.
• The time saving tools will help make even a lean IT team work like a larger force.

Read full review