Chef Reviews

We use it for deployment of applications. It is a tool that you can use on the back-end for deploying architectures.

I have used the product for a couple years. I used to work for an online data center, and we used Chef for a lot of the tools and appointments.

When you are running a large cluster with hybrid applications, it can be very instrumental in making sure that they are running in sync. The tools it offers for running in environments has made it a good solution to use.

Its most valuable feature is automation.

Third-party innovations need improvement, and I would like to see more integration with other platforms.

We put quite a lot of stress on it, especially in our larger environments.

The scalability is good. I have used it for several environments, from small (a couple of servers) to large clusters more than 50 servers). 

We have seen a lot of ROI. Our customers really enjoy the tool. We are able to save in development time, deployment time, and it makes it easier to manage the environments.

Purchasing the solution from AWS Marketplace was a good experience. AWS's pricing is pretty in line with the product's regular pricing. Though instance-wise, AWS is not the cheapest in the market.

The AWS platform is solid. With the technologies that they offer, it makes it easy to integrate. When you are building environments and your able to integrate everything together, this is good thing.

We looked at a combination of open source and other paid solutions. It was hard because Chef offered many options that others didn't, so it wasn't a one-to-one comparison.

Chef had better functionality, flexibility, and price. It is a clean product that is easy to work with and our customers like the product.

It works well. I would highly recommend it. 

It is a well thought out product which integrates well with what developers and customers are looking for.

The product works well with VMware environments.

I have used the on-premise and AWS versions. It integrates well if you are in AWS environments. However, if you are on-premise, it may not be the best solution.

We were using the tool for managing Kubernetes.

The product is useful for automating processes.

I did not like the solution. It is an old technology. Compared to Ansible, it just doesn't hold up because we need to deploy a client to each of the services we need to manage, which makes the automation much harder.

The tool was fairly stable.

The product was deployed on the cloud.

I would not recommend the solution to others. It depends entirely on how someone’s system is made, but still, I would probably suggest something else entirely. Overall, I rate the tool a four or five out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for the orchestration of the service deployment, and integrations. Earlier, we had it on-prem but now it's totally on AWS cloud. AWS cloud is easier to use, and changing and refitting the architecture solutions is very easy.

This solution has improved my organization in the way that deployment has become very quick and orchestration is easy. If we have thousands of servers we can easily deploy in a small amount of time. We can deploy the applications or any kind of announcements in much less time. 

We started using the AWS services, for example, Opsware. Whatever recipes we have written in SAP, we can use the same recipe in Opsware. Moving from one to the other is almost no work.

The most valuable features for us would be the writing of the recipes. Any business can write the recipe based on their deployment, it's not like we have to follow a specific path. 

AWS Marketplace gives you a sense of authentic products. Since AWS does its own checks on the marketplace products it's kind of a sense of relief that something will not be problematic.

I would rate this solution a nine because our use case and whatever we need is there. Ten out of ten is perfect. We have to go to IOD and stuff so they should consider things like this  to make it a ten.

It's quite stable, we hardly see surprises. Its deployment is very smooth.

We have many applications and each one has its own cluster of the servers. We have more than a hundred servers and a couple of clusters which is a big environment. We use SAP and they help us. 

If we need technical support we raise an AWS ticket and someone from the technical support team helps us. If we hit a roadblock we have to go out beyond AWS support which is fine.

The reason that we chose this solution is because it's more effective and it gives us the ability to do the customization that we would like to do. It's also more versatile in the way that we can deploy using this tool, not only on Cloud but at the same time on-prem as well. It's more powerful.

We see ROI from saving a lot of time and that our deliveries are now on time. Also, we save the amount of time we take to deploy and make any changes in the deployment and in expediting service. The amount of time invested there is less which in turn we can invest in some other work. So our ROI is speed.

I would rate this solution a nine because it's simple, easy to use, more versatile, and most importantly, it can handle the hundred thousand servers at the same time very easily and almost in no time.

It depends on the enterprise need, but I would advise someone considering this solution that if you want to have very heavy or big clusters this is a product you can trust for deployment and it's smooth. You can create your own custom recipe which in other products, I would say is only partially there and depends on the different types of applications. Not all applications have the same deployment and orchestration patterns and most of the SAP deployment credits are covered. 

It is for orchestrating our servers and deployments to do integrations.

Deployment has become quick and orchestration is now easy. If you have thousand of servers, you can easily deploy them in a minimum amount of time. You can deploy applications or any type of announcements in a reduced amount of time.

Writing recipes, which is great. Any business can write a recipe based on their deployment. We do not have to follow a path.

It is simple, easy to use, and versatile. The most important thing is it can handle a 100,000 servers at the same time easily with no time constraints.

Since we are heading to IoT, this product should consider anything related to this.

The product is quite stable. We hardly experience any surprises. Its deployment is very smooth.

We have many applications and each is having its own cluster of the service. We have more than a 100 servers and a couple of clusters. That is a big environment.

If we need help, we raise an AWS ticket. Then, the AWS support helps us with the technical support.

The integration and configuration of this product in our AWS environment was simple.

We are saving a lot our delivery time and on te amount of the time that we deploy. We used to make changes during the deployment. So, the amount of time invested there is less, which in turn, we can invest in some other work. Therefore, our ROI is quick, though it does depend on the size of your service.

Purchasing through the AWS Marketplace was a good place to go to purchase this product because you receive a sense of authenticity with the products. Since AWS has its own checks on AWS Marketplace products, there is sense of relief that the product will not be problematic.

We looked at other product like Puppet. We are also using Ansible. However, Chef is the market leader, so we went with that.

Chef is more effective. It provides the hooks, so we can do customization. The product is more versatile. For example, we can deploy using this tool, not only with cloud, but simultaneously on-premise. So, it is quite powerful.

If someone would like to go for a heavy cluster, this is a product they can trust for deployment, since it is smooth. Even though customization is needed, they can create their own custom recipe, which in other products, I would say is partially there and also depends on the different type of applications. 

We had the solution on on-premise for a year, but now it is completely on AWS Cloud. AWS Cloud is easier to use. We can change the solution by refitting the architecture solution now because it is easy.

My primary use case for Chef has been always for infrastructure provisioning. For example, infrastructure as a cloud, provisioning it in a multi-cloud environment. That's predominantly what we're using Chef for.

I wanted to monitor a hybrid cloud environment, one using AWS and Azure. If I have to provision/orchestrate between multiple cloud platforms, I can use Chef as a one-stop solution, to broker between those cloud platforms and orchestrate around them, rather than going directly into each of the cloud-vendors' consoles. It works like a centralized broker/control management solution, which has helped broker in a hybrid cloud environment. AWS and Azure just two examples. This cloud platform keeps expanding.

The best are some of the default, out-of-the-box capabilities that are available. Plug-ins with multiple vendors and other infra-cloud platforms. The templates are very easy to use. Ease of use, overall, is an advantage of Chef.

The time that it takes in terms of integration. Cloud integration is comparatively easy, but when it comes to two-link based integrations - like trying to integrate it with any monitoring tools, or maybe some other ticketing tools - it takes longer. That is because most of the out-of-the-box integration of the APIs needs some revisiting. They should make it into a larger toolset.

I would also like to see more analytics and reporting features. Currently, the analytics and reporting features are limited. I'll have to start building my own custom solution with Power BI or Tableau or something like that. If it came with built-in analytics and reporting features that would be great.

I have had minor issues with development and configuration but we have an in-house team that takes care of most of it.

My scaling is taken care of, predominantly, with the native capabilities with my cloud. Most of our environments are cloud-first companies, so that has not been much of a challenge.

When I start adding more engines to it, so far I haven't faced issues because I have a different level of scaling up. But in terms of horizontal scalability, like adding more technology, for instance, I think Chef has a ways to go. Vertical scalability is still good but the horizontal, adding more technologies, platforms, tools, integrations, Chef should take a look into that.

Vendor support has been decent. It's okay from that perspective. But sometimes it takes a while. They could have more dedicated support. Sometimes that is a challenge. If my in-house team cannot handle it, getting dedicated vendor support is a challenge and something that comes at a premium. Because they charge us a premium, I use my partner's channel rather than directly with Chef. Except for some proofs of concept and some demos, I haven't used much help.

But presale support was very good.

I mostly wrote scripts, predominantly with Python and some others. Compared them, Chef has definitely been more satisfactory.

Setting up initially was quite straightforward. What was challenging was when our platforms kept changing. We had an on-premise environment and we evolved to the cloud world. Then there was AWS and Azure. We keep adding and expanding. Maybe we haven't thought much about our architecture - that's been through some changes. And maybe the horizontal capabilities I was talking about earlier, the scalability might be another aspect. But the initial setup itself was quite straightforward.

There are some flexible pricing models which you get from multiple partners, and then we bundle our solution. From that perspective, it is okay so far. But maybe when we go to the enterprise level, there will be components we have to pay for, when it comes to DevOps with customers who already have an existing license. Those things are always complicated. But otherwise, for regular commercial licensing, it can be flexible.

We used SPO Orchestrator. And before Chef there was one proof of concept with Puppet but for some reason, Puppet was not as developer-oriented. Many of our in-house people found Chef to be more user-friendly, from an administrative perspective, so we narrowed it down to Chef.

If you're looking for an environment where there is an ROI business case, or looking into or orchestrating multiple environments, it makes sense to go with Chef. But if it's a minor orchestration you're looking into, the best tool would always be native solutions. In other words, if I you are looking at a platform where there will be two or three moving parts, you should look at the platform's built-in, native solution. If you have a wider range of moving parts and automation to be done, configuration-wise, you can bring in an orchestrator like Chef.

I have used in my current company for three years, and with other clients for more than ten years.

My clients are happy, which is the most important thing.

The most valuable feature is automation. 

The AWS monitoring, AWS X-Ray, and some other features could be improved.

We have some issues in Brazilian region with stability. However, in US region, we have no issues with stability.

Scalability is pretty good. We have nothing to complain about, except the price.

I would rate the technical support as a ten out of ten.

Amazon is a great partner.

The integration and configuration are pretty good in the AWS environment. The problems are usually on our side, not on AWS' side.

The price is always a problem. It is high. There is room for improvement. I do like purchasing on the AWS Marketplace, but I would like the ability to negotiate and have some flexibility in the pricing on it. 

I don't like some of the products offered by VMware. I like the automation offered by Chef and Puppet.

We chose Chef because some clients have some legacy systems and decided to work with them. We don't really like work with VMs, but when we have to, we use Puppet.

I have used the on-premise and AWS versions. I prefer the AWS for troubleshooting.

It integrates with many products in ILT, data management, and the server areas with each of them providing cloud computing, like EC2 and API Gateway.

I used Chef for server provisioning in AWS using the knife-aws plugin.

I also used Chef as a configuration management tool. It did all the setup and configuration for all the software packages for multiple servers. To make any updates to the server setups, all we did was update the recipes on the Chef Server.

Manual deployments came to a halt completely. Server provisioning became lightning fast. Chef-docker enabled us to have fewer sets of source code for different purposes. Configuration management was a breeze and all the servers were as good as immutable servers.

Configuration management is the most useful feature and is used by everyone. Provisioning is also an important feature. Since Chef collects a lot of inventory using Ohai, the inventory can also be used to integrate with third-party tools.

Although deployment can be done a lot better with other tools on the market, Chef also accomplishes this. However, remember that rollback can be problematic here.

In my presentation to SAP engineering, Ansible was chosen over Chef by all the admins for one reason: simplicity. If only Chef were easier to use and code, it would be used much more widely by the community.

Chef is an extremely amazing tool and has been extensively developed in the last couple of years. There are tons of plugins and integrations available for it, my favorite being the Chef-docker plugin.

I started with Chef as a QA engineer and wrote some beginner level recipes for some easy setups on AWS. I then worked on a bank project where I used the knife-vcloud plugin for Chef to automate provisioning for VMware vCloud. I did some initial evaluation, comparing Chef and Ansible for SAP to automate deployment on bare metal. In some recent projects, I wrote Chef recipes for deployment automation. I integrated it with Fabric/Python. 

I would definitely rate Chef an eight out of 10. Although Chef is easy to code, it still has a little learning curve, since you need to know Ruby.

• For software management
• Competitive deployment
• Upgrade

It is easy to manage on our production systems because there is an agent running on all the servers. When we want to make a change, we just make or publish our changes on the Chef server. So, it is easy to make changes to hundreds of servers in one shot. Instead of doing manually configuration, everything is automated.

Automation is everything. Having so many servers in production, many of our processes won't work nor scale. So, we look for tools to help us automate the process, and Chef is one of them.

Right now, we are moving towards a container department with Docker and Kubernetes, so I'm not sure if Chef has features to support containers. I haven't really researched it yet, but if they can improve their software to support Docker containers, it would be for the best.

The stability is good.

The scalability is great.

Because we're using the open software, we never get a chance to call their support. We just use the community support. 

If you have a question, just upload your questions on the community forum, and ask for answers from there.

The integration and configuration were pretty straight forward. We have automated most of our department processes with Chef. Therefore, whenever there is a new software release ready, we can automatically use Chef to publish it to production. It is very easy to use.

We need to upgrade Chef and Ansible.

We are using the free, open source version of the software, which we are happy with at this time.

We have also used Ansible and Puppet. We have been using Ansible ever since it deployed a Docker containers with Kubernetes. We are also using Kubernetes to help manage our product assistance. 

We have our product integrated with Chef and Ansible. They are not integrated on the same system because we use two different systems. We are not using Puppet anymore.

Chef is a great tool to use. Try to automate your whole department process with Chef, if possible. Also, try to use the same tool across different platforms, so it will be easier to manage.