Within the configuration management space, people often distinguish between agent-based and agent-less approaches. In short, an agent-based solution means that you install a software agent to run in the background / periodically on the system. That software agent then makes changes to the system as desired, and also commonly communicates over the network to send and receive updates, policy, commands, scripts, data, etc. On the other hand, an agentless system does not involve installing something new, they instead rely on some software which is (presumed) already installed, like the SSH server, which can be used to acces and make changes to the system.
Whether you are migrating from Ansible to CFEngine to gain some of the benefits of scale or autonomy or just need some functionality in an Ansible module, the ansible promise type can be a great tool to utilize.
It also provides a compelling alternative to ansible-pull and works around some of the caveats included with that strategy. CFEngine has battle-tested features needed for the pull architecture:
cf-execd handles scheduling periodic runs as ansible-pull suggests using cron cf-agent handles locking to avoid concurrent runs of the same playbooks A tiny Ansible project example Taking some first-step tips from 5 ways to harden a new system with Ansible let’s make a sample playbook project which patches Linux systems.
CFEngine and Ansible are two complementary infrastructure management tools. Findings from our analysis show that they can be combined and used side by side with joint forces to handle all areas in the best possible way. Part of infrastructure management is hosts deployment, either when building a brand new infrastructure or when growing one by adding new hosts. This is something Ansible truly excels in as it makes it very easy to run a sequence of steps on all hosts to initialize (deploy) them and it only requires SSH access to the hosts and Python installed on them. 1
CFEngine and Ansible are two complementary infrastructure management tools that both work with so-called inventories. However, the common term can be quite confusing because the way they are defined and created is very different for an Ansible Inventory and for a CFEngine Inventory. In the most basic case, an Ansible Inventory is just a file with a list of hosts and groups of hosts that Ansible then manages when fed the inventory file. On the other hand, CFEngine Inventory is a database of information about all the hosts in the infrastructure managed by CFEngine which the hosts themselves report. In a more complex scenario, an Ansible Inventory can also contain a lot of information about the hosts in the infrastructure, but those need to be pulled from somewhere else and given to Ansible. With CFEngine, hosts talk to a CFEngine Hub, pull policy from it and report information back to it. On the other hand, with Ansible, policy is pushed to the hosts from one place which thus must have a list of all hosts available in advance, potentially with some extra information (parameters) of the hosts.
Generally speaking, CFEngine and Ansible can be used to solve the same problems, but their approaches are different. In this blog post I’d like to discuss the different approaches, their consequences, some advantages of each tool, and even using them together.
CFEngines autonomous agents CFEngine works by installing and running an agent on every host of your infrastructure. It is distributed, each CFEngine agent will evaluate its policy periodically and independently. They rely on a centralized hub for refreshing policy and reporting. Updating the policy, enforcing it, and reporting on the results are decoupled - each of these 3 steps can happen with different configurations / schedules.
Scalability is an important feature of any infrastructure management solution. Either the to-be-managed infrastructure is big already or it is expected to grow as the business grows. Over time more and more resources are needed for CI/CD pipelines and more customers use the product(s). Generally, growing a business means more traffic and requests need to be handled by the infrastructure. Hence, scalability is an important metric for comparing infrastructure management tools when deciding which one to use. Or which ones. Read our latest white paper, benchmarking and comparing the scalability of Ansible and CFEngine for large scale infrastructure management:
2020 is nearly over, and we’d like to take a couple of minutes to reflect on our year as well as provide a sneak peek into what you can expect from us in 2021. Although it has been a year full of distractions, the CFEngine team has continued to make significant strides when it comes to product improvements and new features that help our users.
Build powerful compliance reports based on important inventory data Compliance reports are high level reports, allowing you to see how compliant your infrastructure is. Checks are run against reporting data from all of your hosts, or a filtered subset, to find how many of them meet a certain compliance requirement. They are easy to build and use, entirely from the UI, with no programming needed, but flexible and powerful, allowing you to use package version information, custom inventory from your policy or even SQL queries if you need it. Compliance reports are not limited to a one regulation or framework, like CIS or HIPAA, but allow you to build your own checklists, based on your organizations requirements and compliance goals. See Compliance Reports in this video:
Ansible and CFEngine are two configuration management tools and at first glance they look like competitors - two tools dealing with the same problem, in very different ways. But are they? Maybe they are actually not dealing with the same problem and are not as incompatible as it seems. Read our Ansible|CFEngine white paper providing an analysis of this area to learn more:
