Ansible vs Puppet: Who wins the server management battle?
As everyone knows, automating server management can save hours of time and guarantee consistency across different environments. There are several tools to achieve this, but two of the most popular are Ansible and Puppet. Both of them have their unique features, advantages, and disadvantages.
In this blog, we will be comparing Ansible vs. Puppet in a comprehensive, unbiased way. We will be using several numbers to support the comparison and provide references at the end of the post.
Installation and Configuration
Starting with the installation and configuration part. To install Ansible and Puppet, the process is quite easy, and both solutions offer extensive community guides. Installing Ansible requires only installing the package manager and if you are running a Linux distro based on Debian or Ubuntu, a simple command is all it takes, such as:
sudo apt-get install ansiblePuppet takes more effort to configure, as it requires a master-slave setup, meaning you need an agent in every machine that you want to control.
Ansible takes the win, but Puppet's architecture is more suited for large enterprises.
Performance
Performance is essential and can be a deciding factor for some companies. Both Puppet and Ansible are written in different programming languages. Ansible is a Python script, while Puppet is built with Ruby.
Comparing Ansible's startup time and Puppet's, Ansible takes 0.0055 seconds, while Puppet takes 2.916 seconds. This indicates that Ansible has better real-time performance compared to Puppet.
In terms of performance, Ansible is the clear winner.
Scalability
Scalability is crucial for businesses, especially when it comes to a configuration management tool. The tool must be capable of handling multiple servers and scaling up quickly when necessary.
Both Puppet and Ansible can handle a large number of servers, but Ansible is better suited for horizontal scaling because of its agentless architecture.
Ansible wins this round.
Security
When it comes to security, both tools are safe to use. Ansible offers Secure Shell (SSH) protocol-based authentication, which is considered the most secure authentication method.
Puppet uses its ecosystems called "certificate authority" providing SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encryption between the agent and the master server.
An objective tie on this round.
Learning Curve
Both configurations management tools can be challenging to learn initially. Puppet's learning curve is a bit steeper, and it can take some time before individuals get the hang of it. Ansible's learning curve depends on the complexity of the infrastructure, but it is generally more straightforward than Puppet.
Ansible wins this round.
Community and Support
Both tools have a supportive community and an active online presence. They both also have extensive documentation and support on their websites.
However, Puppet has more community support, forums, and event cross trainings.
Puppet wins this round.
The Conclusion
Although both configuration management tools have their strengths and weaknesses, the final verdict is that Ansible is the winner. It is easier to learn, has a better real-time performance, is more scalable, and has simple installation requirements.
Puppet may seem more suited to large enterprises, and it is more secure, but Ansible is the standout performer, overall.