We are using Chef SaaS for the release process of all product items and for configuring all our products. Chef SaaS helps us maintain consistent application behavior by aiding with consistency and automating our configuration processes.
Consistent releases have improved collaboration while configuration procedures still need simplification
What is our primary use case?
What is most valuable?
What stands out for me in Chef SaaS is that the procedure is straightforward and the release goes smoothly because we can create different versions according to our own requirements.
Chef SaaS helps with collaboration between our development and operations team. A benefit I can see is that configuring is easier because developers commit new code and new versions, and using Chef SaaS, we can create different cookbooks. Cookbooks contain different recipes, and different cookbooks represent different versions. Using these versions, we can consolidate and create a new package that will help us with the release.
Since this is a product-based company and our product is wind turbines, every time we have a product release or patch release, Chef SaaS helps us tremendously. We release different patch cycles such as LTS patch cycles, Windows patches, or any kind of patch feature and built features. To maintain the cycle, the process is quite smooth.
What needs improvement?
An area of improvement is that if you compare Chef SaaS to Ansible, Ansible is much faster and the process is easier and faster, but Chef SaaS is more complicated. It has different kinds of file sets, so to make it straightforward, I feel they should improve the procedure and the entire process. The server setup could also be faster and easier.
Chef SaaS is more complicated than Ansible, but Ansible is faster and generally easier.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been working with the product for almost four years, close to five years, but I do not directly use this product myself. My colleagues do use this.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
Chef SaaS is stable and we have never faced any issues with it. It is quite reliable in that regard, and since it is mature and established, it is capable enough to manage large infrastructures.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Chef SaaS is scalable, but we are not scaling it in our infrastructure. We could scale it in better ways by creating different management systems and from management you could create parallel or centralized management, but we are not trying to scale it up. We are doing it in a consistent way for consistency purposes, and we do not want anything to have issues.
How are customer service and support?
I am not certain about this because I have never reached out for technical support for Chef SaaS. Probably other colleagues who use it exclusively on a day-to-day basis might have, but my team has not reached out for any kind of support so far.
How was the initial setup?
The installation part is moderate, somewhere in between.
The biggest challenge when installing Chef SaaS is typically setting up the server and workstation. You need to maintain node certificates, install the certificates, create different environments, and create cookbooks and policy files. There are significantly more components to manage.
What was our ROI?
As for the return on investment, I would say that maybe a bit of time can be observed with Chef SaaS. I would probably not say it is time-saving. It does consume some time, but the impact is neutral.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Chef SaaS is a bit expensive, but not very much so.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
I do work with Ansible, vSphere, Azure, and others. We do use GitLab and Black Duck. We do use Ansible, but not very exclusively for any specific purpose. We are using it for our own internal work.
What other advice do I have?
We do not use the InSpec feature. I would rate this product seven point five out of ten.
