On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Bill Bogstad wrote:
Configuration management is clearly useful when you have lots of
machines and/or have to frequently recreate a pristine environment.
However, it has never made sense to me for small environments which
aren't going to grow. (Yes, they do exist.)
Any non-trivial toolset involves trade-offs, and cost-benefit analysis
is always necessary. I'm a great believer in automation, but I still
do my personal finances with pen and paper because the time I'd need
to maintain electronic records is more than I lose to inefficiency
(say, during tax season).
Another person in this thread mention five machines as his break-even
point for CM automation. For me, it's three, but the point is that
we've done the cost analysis.
I've only come up with one reason to do CM for small installations:
disaster recovery.
I'll add another: documentation. This has two benefits, business
continuity and troubleshooting.
The simple fact of noting alterations means that your successor, after
you've gone away to take care of a sick family member or you've been
hit by the proverbial bus, become aware of what's been done to get a
machine working.
That helps with disaster recovery, of course, but it also helps with
troubleshooting should things go awry. You'll have a much better idea
of how your system diverges from normal, so you can more quickly
identify likely culprits in unusual problems.
--
Paul Heinlein
heinl...@madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
Tech@lists.lopsa.org
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
