Content deleted Content added
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) lead - IaC is broader than this |
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) MOS caps in headings |
||
Line 8:
IaC grew as a response to the difficulty posed from two pieces of disruptive technology – utility computing and second-generation web framework. This brought about widespread scaling problems for many enterprises that were previously only witnessed by huge companies.<ref name= CCA>{{cite report |last= Fletcher | first= Colin | last2= Cosgrove | first2=Terrence |title=Innovation Insight for Continuous Configuration Automation Tools|website=Gartner|url=http://www.gartner.com/document/3119319?ref=unauthreader | date=26 August 2015}}</ref> In 2006 specifically, new challenges were brought to the forefront that shook the technology industry; the launch of Amazon web services’ Elastic Compute Cloud and the 1.0 version of [[Ruby on Rails]] just months before.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Bower |first=Joseph L. | last2= Christensen | first2= Claton M. | title= Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave | journal= Harvard Business Review}}</ref> With new tools emerging to handle this every growing field, the idea of Infrastructure as Code was born. The thought of modeling infrastructure with code, and then having the ability to design, implement, and deploy applications infrastructure with known software best practices appealed to software developers and IT infrastructure administrators. The ability to treat it like code and use the same tools as any other software project would allow developers to rapidly deploy applications.<ref>{{cite journal | last= Riley| first= Chris| date= 12 November 2015 | title= Version Your Infrastructure| url= http://devops.com/2015/11/12/version-your-infrastructure/ | journal=DevOps.com}}</ref>
==Added
The value of Infrastructure as Code can be broken down into three, measurable categories: Cost (reduction), Speed (faster execution) and Risk (remove errors and security violations).<ref>{{cite web| url=http://devops.com/2015/02/26/how-deploy-frequency-impacts-infrastructure-stability/| title=How Deploy Frequency Impacts Infrastructure Stability| last= Macvittie |first= Lori| website= DevOps.com | date= 26 February 2015}}</ref> Cost reduction aims at helping not only the enterprise financially but also in terms of people and effort, meaning that by removing the manual component, people are able to refocuses their efforts towards other enterprise tasks. Infrastructure automation enables speed through faster execution when configuring your infrastructure and aims at providing visibility to help other teams across the enterprise work quickly and more efficiently. Automation removes the risk associated with human error, like manual misconfiguration; removing this can decrease downtime and increase reliability. These outcomes and attributes help the enterprise move towards implementing a culture of DevOps.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://devops.com/2015/05/14/moving-from-infrastructure-automation-to-true-devops/| title= Moving from Infrastructure Automation to True DevOps| last= Phillips |first=Andrew| website= DevOps.com| date= 14 May 2015}}</ref>
==Types of
There are generally two approaches to IaC declarative (functional) vs. imperative (procedural). The difference between the declarative and imperative approach is essential ''what'' versus ''how''. The declarative approach focuses on what the configuration should be; whereas, imperative focuses on how the infrastructure is to be configured.<ref>{{cite web | url= https://www.scriptrock.com/blog/articles/declarative-vs.-imperative-models-for-configuration-management | title= Declarative v. Imperative Models for Configuration Management: Which Is Really Better? |website= Scriptrock.com | access-date= 14 December 2015}}</ref> The declarative approach defines the desired state and the system executes what needs to happen to achieve that desired state. Imperative defines specific commands that need to be executed in the appropriate order to end with the desired conclusion.<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Loschwitz | first= Martin | date= 14 November 2014 | title= Choosing between the leading open source configuration managers| url=http://www.admin-magazine.com/Archive/2014/23/Choosing-between-the-leading-open-source-configuration-managers | magazine= Admin Network & Security | ___location= Lawrence, KS USA | publisher= Linux New Media USA LLC }}</ref>
Line 23:
All Continuous Configuration Automation (CCA) tools can be thought of as an extension of traditional IaC frameworks; it leverages IaC to change, configure, and automate infrastructure, but also provides visibility, efficiency and flexibility in how your infrastructure is managed.<ref name= CCA /> These additional attributes provide enterprise level security and compliance - making companies keen on implementing these types of tools.
====Community
An important aspect when considering CCA tools is the community content. As [[Gartner]] states the value of CCA tools is “as dependent on user community-contributed content and support as it is on the commercial maturity and performance of the automation tooling.”<ref name=CCA/> Vendors like Puppet and Chef, those that have been around a significant amount of time, have created their own communities; Chef has Chef Community Repository and Puppet has PuppetForge,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://philsturgeon.uk/devops/2012/10/28/puppet-or-chef/|title=Puppet or Chef?| last= Sturgeon |first= Phil| date= 28 October 2012}}</ref> other vendors rely on adjacent communities and leverage other IaC frameworks such as PowerShell DSC.<ref name=powershell/> As the field continues to develop and change, the community based content will become ever important to how IaC tools are utilized.
Notable CCA tools include:
{| class="wikitable"
! Tool Name
| |||