HashiCorp Terraform Reviews

We use the solution for three things. Firstly, to automate the infrastructure, like enabling Logpush to Datadog. Secondly, for Cloudflare AWS and Insight AWS. Thirdly, we use Terraform to create infrastructure.

It is one of the best things because now we have everything automated with Terraform. We didn't have an outage for the last three years because everything is written in a code, and every change we have made is recorded. If we didn't have a tool like Terraform, it would be extremely complex to achieve this level of maturity with infrastructure.

The state file is the most valuable feature because it helps one know what exactly one has.

The solution is complex when we use it for a loop. This is a problem, not because of the language itself, but because of how the infrastructure generally works. It's different from Python.

I have been using the solution for three and a half years.

It is a stable solution. I rate it nine out of ten.

The solution is not very scalable. I rate it six out of ten.

The initial setup is complex.

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

I plan to use the solution more in the future. I recommend people to use it as it is the best tool in the market at the moment to create infrastructure anywhere.

I rate it ten out of ten.

We use it to deploy resources on AWS.

It's very easy to automate functions on the cloud with HashiCorp Terraform. The commands are easy as well.

The syntax is a bit difficult, and it would great if it could be easier.

I've been using HashiCorp Terraform for four and a half years.

HashiCorp Terraform is a stable solution. We have 15 people who use it in our organization.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy.

There are free and paid versions of the solution. We use the free version.

I would recommend HashiCorp Terraform and rate it at eight out of ten. I like that there is a free version of the product, but the coding could be easier.

We use Terraform to create infrastructure. We get the name of the resource provider, and the Terraform script is returned in HashiCorp Configuration Language (HCL). 

We can find readily available code from the HashiCorp community to create a virtual machine or Kubernetes service cluster. We take that code, provide the resource provider name, and run the script using Terraform commands to create the infrastructure

We currently use Terraform in our Azure pipelines in the cloud. Our team has 10 developers, and we will increase our usage as the team grows. 

We frequently need to create and replicate infrastructure from various environments like dev and QA. The QA resources need to be identical to those in the dev environment. With a Terraform script, we can replicate the same 50 in the dev environment to the testing environment. This is tedious to do manually, and Terraform speeds up the process. 

Infrastructure replication is Terraform's most valuable feature. 

Terraform should also support YAML language, which is more user-friendly than HCL. They should also add a GUI, so you don't need to memorize all the commands. A GUI would enable us to do everything with a click of a button. 

I have been using Terraform for the last three years.

I rate Terraform seven out of 10 for stability.

I rate Terraform eight out of 10 for scalability.`

I rate HashiCorp seven out of 10 for technical support.

Neutral

I rate Terraform eight out of 10 for ease of setup. 

Terraform is an open-source solution.

I rate HashiCorp Terraform seven out of 10. It's interesting to see how the infrastructure is created rather than creating it manually.

I use the solution to provision cloud resources on Azure, AWS, and GCP platforms.

What I like best is how easy the tool is to use. The HashiCorp Terraform language syntax is simple to learn. The Terraform.io registry feature is very useful - we can refer to our code and use pre-created modules posted there.

One area for improvement is real-time syncing with the actual infrastructure. Currently, you have to run CLI commands to sync the state file.

I have been using the product for two years. 

I rate the tool an eight out of ten. Sometimes, it can break down when handling too many resource creations at once due to dependency issues. 

I've contacted the support team a few times when getting errors.

Positive

The initial setup and deployment are also easy, especially when using the tool's code to deploy to cloud platforms.

The tool is worth the money. 

While it's easy to learn, you need experience with the HashiCorp Terraform language syntax to use it. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use for the solution is to create infrastructure on the cloud. 

We are a cloud integrator. We write our codes in Terraform and reuse them for multiple customers by changing the values. 

The most valuable feature is the great community support. 

The product can be improved by implementing a native provider service. With Terraform, you need to switch the provider's version and get functionality from only that version. 

The competitor tools have native providers. You don't have to wait and request the provider to gain functionality; it's provided directly from the cloud. 

The integration with this solution needs to be improved. For example, if you want to deploy something from Terraform to Kubernetes and make changes very often, practically, it isn't easy to implement. If someone deletes something accidentally, the integration won't function well.  

I have been using this solution for more than five years. 

I would rate stability a nine out of ten. I don't have any problems with the stability. 

I would rate scalability a seven out of ten. It is problematic when multiple people want to work on the same Terraform code.

This solution is best suited for enterprise-level companies, but medium and small businesses can also use it. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment time for the solution is about thirty minutes. 

We are using all the deployment models for this solution. But I prefer to use the CI/CD pipeline, which involves running the Terraform code as a final solution. I also prefer the CLI platform on my computer for development. When I develop the code, I prefer running it from my computer. After the code development, I prefer to have its own CI/CD pipeline. 

I would rate pricing a ten out of ten. You can do everything with the free license of this solution. The paid license is not required to use Terraform. 

We used Pulumi for a project. We found that Terraform is easier to write code and works faster. 

But it would be best if you learned Terraform HCL language. In the competitor solution Pulumi, languages like Go, Python, and other languages can be used. There is no need to learn a new language to use Pulumi. 

For me, it's more complicated to write the same infrastructure. If you are a cloud administrator, you should use Terraform. But if you are a developer or want to deploy simple infrastructure with knowledge of the cloud, then you should use Pulumi.

I will rate the solution a five out of ten. This is because multiple other solutions get used with Terraform. For servers, we use Ansible, whereas, for cloud infrastructure, we use Terraform. Developers need Pulumi for implementation. Terraform is facing a lot of competition. 

I would recommend Terraform to others. If you have more than one environment, you will definitely need Terraform. 

It is easy to architect cloud infrastructure using the solution. Also, its simple interface helps in developing specific scripts.

They should provide more tutorials to understand the solution's use cases. Also, they include more specific features into it.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The solution's initial setup process is straightforward. It takes a couple of weeks to complete. Once you define everything, you can start working on it right away. The deployment happens almost immediately.

I recommend the solution to others. I rate it ten out of ten.

The office was working out of their office and they had around nine clients. The workspace would be in AWS and doing a VPC manually would have been a really hard job. The time estimated for doing nine virtual private clouds would have taken more than a month or two. Using Terraform, they were able to finish it in two weeks. The speed at which we could create the infrastructure was much faster than physically doing it. Also, having an audit and log for all the infrastructure was managed a lot easier using Terraform rather than doing it manually.

One of the most valuable features is that it offers the ability to create a VPC, Virtual Private Cloud and VPN connectivity to the VPC can be automated without having to do it manually. 

I still struggle a bit when configuring VPNs when we have multiple rules. If we have five or six virtual private clouds and we have to give rights between those multiple VPCs, we can have big problems.  I think it was a learning curve and then we improved it. 

I have not come across anything that really stopped us from not doing anything for our requirement as of now.

I liked it because since it's scriptable, the way you create the infrastructure is the same way you can delete the infrastructure also. If you created 10 to 20 different services and objects in AWS using a Terraform script, it's much easier for a person to get the whole infrastructure down. You can do a backup and then you don't really need AWS services because either the client does not exist anymore, or there is some gap before the client comes back, you don't have to manually go and delete all the resources. One script would actually remove everything from AWS. 

Cost-wise, going through the script and then removing everything that you have created through the script is much better than manually doing it. That was helpful for the client as well.

We use it to manage infrastructure. For day-to-day work, the main developers were not using Terraform, so it was only three of us who used it. We were working on Terraform, created those scripts, and then gave it to the client for whom I was doing the work. Since it's now scriptable, they are able to manage and do all these small changes. They don't come back to me. Since they don't come back to me, it seems like it is working fine.

Terraform keeps updating its scriptable platform, the engine through which they communicate. So if there is any change in AWS, they keep updating it. Even from the deployment side, they have to be aware of the features, which Terraform still supports and the features, which Terraform doesn't support and then work around accordingly.

The initial setup, like doing the AWS credentials, putting it in place, and getting the API keys are the parts that took time. Otherwise, it is a lot faster and the learning curve is also much easier since it's a YAML-based scripting language. Even a non-programmer in a normal office can understand what is happening in the flow.

The deployment took around 15 days. In around 20 days we were ready with the Terraform scripts and then made small changes. Every time they need a new infrastructure that requires a small change, it would take a day or two. We created the initial Terraform script and gave it to a client so that it could later be managed by the client itself to create and run. Fifteen days was good enough for us to create and test the Terraform infrastructure and then give it to the client.

We started the deployment by seeing how we would divide the infrastructure. One is the list of infrastructure, which we would need irrespective of the clients for the VPC, VPN gateway, and active directory services. Those are all mandatory items that we would need for all the VPCs. And there are some items that are client-specific. We divided it into multiple parts. One is generic, which you will need for all the clients that are a base level. Then you keep playing the client's specific scripts on top of the base script.

It's open-source.

Rather than doing a monolithic Terraform for the whole infrastructure, it would be good for the script to be reusable. Use the base level script that every infrastructure would need. Generating a local IP network and then creating two instances or creating some databases and other basic scripts that all the infrastructure would need should be a base level script. Then add on your base level script with the add-on scripts on top of the base script to create infrastructure that is specific to clients. You can reuse the script, the same base group for many other purposes as well.

Before using Terraform, for auditing, creating machines, etc, we would either rely on AWS infrastructure itself or documents that had infrastructure-related data. Using Terraform, a lot of this data was captured automatically since it's a YAML script. It could be easily exported as a document or Excel file as well. Documentation and infrastructure was much easier to maintain than doing it otherwise.

I would rate Terraform an eight out of ten. 

We are using HashiCorp Terraform to deploy infrastructure for our customers in Amazon AWS.

Our process has been made more efficient with the use of HashiCorp Terraform. This includes the ability to create deployments while also avoiding errors and misconfigurations. With this solution, we can ensure consistency in the deployment of all our customers.

The state file is the most beneficial aspect of HashiCorp Terraform. It enables the retrieval and utilization of a previous state to build upon. This feature is particularly important since it allows for the identification of changes from the previous state, making the state file a critical component of the process.

When a misconfiguration or drift occurs, fixing the issue can be difficult. For instance, if there is a change in API calls while a script is running, it can be challenging to make corrections. This may require additional review and modifications to the code. I recall an instance where an industry budget creation process was altered, and it took significant time to amend the code. In fact, I had to add five or six different script portions to resolve the issue.

In a future update, it would be beneficial for HashiCorp Terraform to include a code-writing feature. There is the availability of third-party solutions, it would be preferable to have the ability to write code, create a plan, and receive feedback on what will be implemented. It would be great if the generated code was easily readable and viewable, as this would be an exciting addition.

I have been using HashiCorp Terraform for approximately two years.

My advice to others is its crucial to handle key and access management properly because the most convenient method is to add your key to your computer's environment variables. However, this approach is not the most secure way to manage your keys. Therefore, exercise caution in this regard.

I rate HashiCorp Terraform a nine out of ten.