Terraform should have remained stateless

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by enobrev on Saturday May 28, 2022 @01:13PM (#31541986)

I'm curious, and not antagonistically, about the size and variability of the infrastructure you're working with, on how many platforms it's running, and how many people are in charge of it.

Is this tool private or available for us to try out?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by hellcow on Saturday May 28, 2022 @02:34PM (#31542589)

It’s small, under 50 servers running OpenBSD and Linux under a wide variety of configurations (including gpu), 6 databases, and Redis. Though the system is easily extensible to other clouds and resource types, it only needs to work on GCP right now. Been running it in prod for the past 3 or 4 years—no outages, no downtime, no surprises. Doubled infra over the holidays then scaled everything back with no issue.

The stateless approach has worked really well for us.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by shyn3 on Saturday May 28, 2022 @06:28PM (#31544419)

This is the reason we didn't get Terraform. In a windows shop the state is never the same because most people will fix it via the UI and then the state file becomes useless

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Terraform should have remained stateless by ImPostingOnHN on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @08:15PM (#31589788)

sounds like a totally reasonable decision

[ Parent | on HN ]