# Chef 12.1 + audit mode + chef-solo? **URL:** \ **Category:** Chef Infra (archive)\ **Created:** [March 5, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468 "2015-03-05T16:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![Roland\_Moriz1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@Roland\_Moriz1](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Roland_Moriz1)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/1 "2015-03-05T16:59:39Z")

Hi, does chef-solo intentionally not support audit mode? Why? thanks Roland ---

**Author:** ![Lamont\_Granquist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lamont\_Granquist](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Lamont_Granquist)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/2 "2015-03-05T19:34:03Z")

No, but this is another example of why chef-client -z is better than chef-solo. There's a few dozen other priorities when doing code review that have higher mental priority than chef solo users and the double-patching to support chef-solo often slips through the cracks. Peer review is done by humans and is never perfect. Its not deliberate, but its predictable that issues like this will continue to happen to chef-solo and it will lag behind. On 3/5/15 8:59 AM, Roland Moriz wrote: > Hi, > > does chef-solo intentionally not support audit mode? Why? > > thanks > Roland ---

**Author:** ![jdunn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/jdunn/32/1800_2.png) [@jdunn](https://discourse.chef.io/u/jdunn)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/3 "2015-03-10T04:56:21Z")

Just to be clear, our intended roadmap relevant to audit mode is: 1. Implement RFC031 to replace Solo entirely with Zero. [https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md](https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md) 2. Implement some mechanism for Chef Client talking in audit mode to a Zero "server" to feed its audit data somewhere (Chef Analytics) HTH, Julian On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Lamont Granquist [lamont@chef.io](mailto:lamont@chef.io) wrote: > No, but this is another example of why chef-client -z is better than > chef-solo. There's a few dozen other priorities when doing code review that > have higher mental priority than chef solo users and the double-patching to > support chef-solo often slips through the cracks. Peer review is done by > humans and is never perfect. Its not deliberate, but its predictable that > issues like this will continue to happen to chef-solo and it will lag > behind. > > On 3/5/15 8:59 AM, Roland Moriz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > does chef-solo intentionally not support audit mode? Why? > > > > thanks > > Roland -- [Julian C. Dunn [jdunn@aquezada.com](mailto:jdunn@aquezada.com) \* Sorry, I'm ] [WWW: [http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian](http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian) \* only Web 1.0 ] [gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ \* compliant!] [PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9] ---

**Author:** ![holoway](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/holoway/32/44_2.png) [@holoway](https://discourse.chef.io/u/holoway)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/4 "2015-03-10T05:23:37Z")

And because this has come up in the past, and I want to be absolutely clear: 1. Only when local mode is a safe, complete super-set of Solo will we switch - that (likely) means a mode that doesn't include binding to a port. 2. chef-solo, the binary, will always exist. Adam On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Julian C. Dunn [jdunn@aquezada.com](mailto:jdunn@aquezada.com) wrote: > Just to be clear, our intended roadmap relevant to audit mode is: > > 1. Implement RFC031 to replace Solo entirely with Zero. > > [https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md](https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md) > 2. Implement some mechanism for Chef Client talking in audit mode to a > Zero "server" to feed its audit data somewhere (Chef Analytics) > > HTH, > Julian > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Lamont Granquist [lamont@chef.io](mailto:lamont@chef.io) wrote: > > > No, but this is another example of why chef-client -z is better than > > chef-solo. There's a few dozen other priorities when doing code review > > that > > have higher mental priority than chef solo users and the double-patching > > to > > support chef-solo often slips through the cracks. Peer review is done by > > humans and is never perfect. Its not deliberate, but its predictable that > > issues like this will continue to happen to chef-solo and it will lag > > behind. > > > > On 3/5/15 8:59 AM, Roland Moriz wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > does chef-solo intentionally not support audit mode? Why? > > > > > > thanks > > > Roland > > -- > [Julian C. Dunn [jdunn@aquezada.com](mailto:jdunn@aquezada.com) \* Sorry, I'm ] > [WWW: [http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian](http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian) \* only Web 1.0 ] > [gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ \* compliant!] > [PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9] ---

**Author:** ![Roland\_Moriz1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@Roland\_Moriz1](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Roland_Moriz1)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/5 "2015-03-12T11:36:40Z")

Hi, Am 10.03.2015 um 06:23 schrieb Adam Jacob [adam@chef.io](mailto:adam@chef.io): > And because this has come up in the past, and I want to be absolutely clear: > > 1. Only when local mode is a safe, complete super-set of Solo will we switch - that (likely) means a mode that doesn't include binding to a port. > 2. chef-solo, the binary, will always exist. > > Adam > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Julian C. Dunn [jdunn@aquezada.com](mailto:jdunn@aquezada.com) wrote: > Just to be clear, our intended roadmap relevant to audit mode is: > > 1. Implement RFC031 to replace Solo entirely with Zero. > [https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md](https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc031-replace-solo-with-local-mode.md) > 2. Implement some mechanism for Chef Client talking in audit mode to a > Zero "server" to feed its audit data somewhere (Chef Analytics) > > HTH, > Julian > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Lamont Granquist [lamont@chef.io](mailto:lamont@chef.io) wrote: > > > No, but this is another example of why chef-client -z is better than > > chef-solo. There's a few dozen other priorities when doing code review that > > have higher mental priority than chef solo users and the double-patching to > > support chef-solo often slips through the cracks. Peer review is done by > > humans and is never perfect. Its not deliberate, but its predictable that > > issues like this will continue to happen to chef-solo and it will lag > > behind. Okay, I really understand that chef-solo is deprecated, however knife-solo was a nice way to roll out chef in small setups where neither an in-house chef-server nor hosted-chef was an option. I personally like knife-zero very much (see [GitHub - higanworks/knife-zero: Run chef-client/cinc-client at remote node with chef-zero(local-mode) via HTTP over SSH port fowarding.](https://github.com/higanworks/knife-zero)) which combines the benefits of "chef-client -z" with a "server-less" setup like knife-solo did in the past. However migration from knife-solo to knife-zero isn't done easily, because chef-zero crashes with the "chef-solo-search" cookbook somewhere in the dependency list [1]. Anyhow, would really appreciate, if Chef, Inc. would support such an entry-level solution because it's significant for the community usage of chef and the low entry-barrier for non-enterprise users. regards Roland [1] [chef-solo-search throws ' "Error 404 "' error during Convergence · Issue #118 · chef/chef-zero · GitHub](https://github.com/chef/chef-zero/issues/118) [Error 404 if if chef-solo-search is anywhere in the dep-tree · Issue #591 · test-kitchen/test-kitchen · GitHub](https://github.com/test-kitchen/test-kitchen/issues/591) ---

**Author:** ![jdunn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/jdunn/32/1800_2.png) [@jdunn](https://discourse.chef.io/u/jdunn)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chef-12-1-audit-mode-chef-solo/6468/6 "2015-03-12T14:45:08Z")

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Roland Moriz [rmoriz@gmail.com](mailto:rmoriz@gmail.com) wrote: > Okay, I really understand that chef-solo is deprecated, however knife-solo was a nice way to roll out chef in small setups where neither an in-house chef-server nor hosted-chef was an option. > I personally like knife-zero very much (see [GitHub - higanworks/knife-zero: Run chef-client/cinc-client at remote node with chef-zero(local-mode) via HTTP over SSH port fowarding.](https://github.com/higanworks/knife-zero)) which combines the benefits of "chef-client -z" with a "server-less" setup like knife-solo did in the past. > However migration from knife-solo to knife-zero isn't done easily, because chef-zero crashes with the "chef-solo-search" cookbook somewhere in the dependency list [1]. > > Anyhow, would really appreciate, if Chef, Inc. would support such an entry-level solution because it's significant for the community usage of chef and the low entry-barrier for non-enterprise users. Yeah... we've contemplated this in ChefDK (some wag has called it "Ansible mode"). Thanks for the feedback. I'm not certain we'd ingest the existing tools directly, but the workflow idea is a nice one. - Julian -- [Julian C. Dunn [jdunn@aquezada.com](mailto:jdunn@aquezada.com) \* Sorry, I'm ] [WWW: [http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian](http://www.aquezada.com/staff/julian) \* only Web 1.0 ] [gopher://sdf.org/1/users/keymaker/ \* compliant!] [PGP: 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9]