I received my copy of ;login (the Usenix magazine) today. There's an article* comparing CPU utilisation of Puppet and Cfengine. To abbreviate massively: Puppet requires much more CPU than Cfengine when both verifying and fixing configuration.
I'm in the early days of implementing Puppet and this has given me something to think about. Whilst I won't be verifying/fixing configuration on our servers on a continual basis, it would be nice if it could be done with low CPU overhead. I am not familiar with Cfengine beyond the reading I did while choosing which configuration management tool to use; I chose Puppet because it seemed more flexible and I figured me and my team would be able to get more done in less time once we'd learned how to use it. Can CPU overhead be reduced to something closer to Cfengine, or is it inherent in the design/implementation of Puppet? Is there an upside in terms of greater flexibility of Puppet? I'd welcome comments from those familiar with both Puppet and Cfengine. *Article is here: http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2010-02/pdfs/bjorgeengen.pdf. Note that reading the magazine article requires a subscription, at least until Feb 2011 (articles published more than 12 months ago are openly available). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
