We use both RHN and chef. Primarliy we use RHN for patching the OS. However we also use it to provide additional channels, such as the RBEL repo(which we keep on the RHN satellite server). We are in a kind of hybrid mode, where we use chef for deploying only a portion of our infrastructure(eg splunk), but everything else is manually installed(this is to do with timescales, learning curve for chef, legacy boxes, and what you know works). I suspect we will be in this hybrid mode for at least 2 more years before we are in a position to move fully to chef, and even then, I am not 100% certain that we won’t bring the RHN satellite server along. Nice to redeploy all your infrastructure with every patch update, but am not convinced we will ever get to that stage(time/resource/legacy).
From: Craig Cook [Craig.Cook@carquest.com]
Sent: 18 April 2012 19:17
Subject: [chef] RHN, Cobbler and Chef
I am looking for some provisioning guidance…
We have a Red Hat Satellite server installed, but not well used/configured yet.
I’m not sold that RHN is the best solution for us.
I want Chef to be the “backbone” app that manages our Red Hat servers, packages, config files, services, etc.
Should RHN manage general OS packages and chef do specific things?
e.g. I have a apache role, assign it to a server. Part of the role says what version of apache to use. Should that functionality live in cobbler/RHN instead?
Should we have a “production” repo that contains all packages and have chef ensure what is locally installed matches the production repo? Should that be RHN’s job?
Is this a “it depends” type answer?