Overall Satisfaction with Puppet Data Center Automation
Our organization uses Puppet Data Center Automation in our integration and test environments as well as in operations. The systems integration team uses Puppet to automate redundant tasks as well as simplify deployment of complex system configurations to benefit system maintainers and installers that are not trained in the intricacies of the platforms and tools being implemented.
- Automation of redundant tasks
- Abstraction of complex tasks
- Integrates well with other community/open-source projects (e.g. Cobbler, Foreman)
- System user interfaces (e.g. Puppet Dashboard)
- Integrated support for password management
- Backend Ruby scripts are very embedded and cumbersome to find/edit in cases where manual bug workarounds are necessary to implement
- Reduced training costs for system operators/maintainers
- Decreased deployment errors and system stand-up time
- Increased user adoption
HPSA is a licensed product and incurs significant upfront investment costs due to COTS licensing. Puppet Data Center Automation has a significantly lower upfront investment and product documentation is more readily available. Chef is a very similar offering, however, at the time our decision was considered, the adoption of Chef vs. Puppet was significantly less in the community.
Puppet Data Center Automation is well suited where the system configuration is to remain as static as possible (minimal changes to operating system and environment) and across more than 3-5 nodes. The amount of overhead to stand-up a robust Puppet solution is not worth it if managing less than 3-5 systems. It is not well suited for development environments where developers and engineers are constantly changing the baseline, and subsequent Puppet runs will modify targeted files back to their original configuration.