stop50
6 hours ago
From the looks of it it only tries to replace puppet. ansible has the strength that it doesn't need to run on the remote server or uses apis that have nothing to do with the remote host itself or has no access to. My aap sits in an completly different network and has access to an vault cluster that the remote hosts have not.
redat00
4 hours ago
Hi!
Some companies do use Ansible at an higher usage level, on big infrastructure, and where change iterations happens quickly.
In this context the Ansible model might not scale well : Your deployment time is bound by both the network you're using to contact the nodes you're managing, where you literally feel any round-trip your packets have to make, and by the number of nodes you have to perform actions on (which is somewhat solved by the use of mitogen with Ansible for example).
On top of that, for advanced usage, you're still dependent on the fact that Python is present on the system you're targeting with Ansible, which makes the idea that "ansible does not require anything on the target host" a bit false, although most distributions ships with Python by default.
Peekl is targeted towards organizations that requires good scaling capabilities, and high velocity in changes deployments. Having to actively be deploying in this context, instead of passively deploying, can be challenging.
Peekl is an alternative to Ansible, but would probably not be as good as an alternative for small individuals/companies who don't manage an important fleet, or do not have an high number of changes going through.
So your point is valid, note everyone would find Peekl a good Ansible alternative.