Salt: Like Puppet, Except It Doesn’t Suck

Re:Salt: Like Puppet, Except It Doesn’t Suck by frio on Monday June 24, 2013 @07:01PM (#5936301)

With vagrant, I can create a vagrantfile. This says: "create a VM using this basic distribution, this networking configuration, these forwarded ports, and this hardware exposed". It defines the basic machine.

I can then use "vagrant up". This creates a new VM using Virtualbox, VMware, or whatever I have installed (I think there's even EC2 providers now!). It configures that VMs hardware as above.

Then, vagrant can use one of many tools in the configuration space -- Chef, Puppet, Salt -- to configure the software in the VM.

I guess the distinction lies there: vagrant configures hardware. Salt et all configure the software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Salt: Like Puppet, Except It Doesn’t Suck by reledi on Friday June 28, 2013 @09:19AM (#5957780)

The quote that SandB0x posted (it comes from vagrantup.com) says that it can be used for defining "the software that needs to be installed". So is the distinction Vagrant : h/w + s/w, Salt et al : s/w?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Salt: Like Puppet, Except It Doesn’t Suck by nbouscal on Friday June 28, 2013 @10:39AM (#5958211)

It's more that you use configuration management for the software, and then Vagrant does the hardware and hands control over to your configuration management for the software. Vagrant can also do the software itself, yes, but the way of doing so is running shell scripts, so it's far preferable to use a configuration management tool (the main benefit being idempotence).

[ Parent | on HN ]