Subscribe

CHEF vs WFA

I am just starting off with WFA and also noticed that CHEF has a cookbook (https://github.com/chef-partners/netapp-cookbook).

Whats the pros and cons of using WFA or CHEF cookbook. I am looking to automate Netapp 7mode/Cmode deployments.

 

Thanks

Re: CHEF vs WFA

It looks like that package was renamed to netapp_e.cookbook, and it is only for NetApp E-series storage.  WFA currently provides a management framework for NetApp 7-mode, and Clustered Data OnTAP.  So it looks like WFA is the way to go for you.  If you are interested in managing NetApp E-series as well, I know that work has been done on a series of workflows that will do just that.  They utilize the same SANtricity web services interface as this chef package, and you can most likely find them on the communities page.

 

Mike

Re: CHEF vs WFA

WFA is a perfect tool since you only need it for FAS. You csn do pretty much everything with it on automation side.

Re: CHEF vs WFA

The cookbook mentions support for Clustered Data Ontap.

I saw that WFA has support for about 60 workflows.If I need anything out of it (like setting options, configuring n/w interfaces,etc..) I have to write commands for this via the WFA command interface (probably using powershell).

 

In terms of effort,it seems to be the same as writing CHEF recipes to perform these. Do correct me if I am incorrect.

 

Thanks

Re: CHEF vs WFA

OK, I found the cookbook that you are referring to.  Not sure why the link did not take me to it, but found it anyway.  When I look at the recipes in the cookbook, they are comparable to commands in WFA, not workflows.  So comparing the two, I see 11 recipes compared to 100+ for clustered OnTap in WFA.  To be fair, the chef recipes look like they do both create and delete objects, so these are more like 22 WFA commands.  They do not appear to show or modify objects.  The CHEF cookbook has all of the basic NetApp objects, like volumes, aggregates, lifs, users.  It does not have anything for SnapMirror, volume moves, QOS and a few other things.  So just based on automation content, I would say WFA has more feature/automation capability.  A workflow is a collection of commands, as well as finders and filters from the WFA database.  So WFA workflows are capable of making selections of resources from the data in the database.  I suspect the chef cookbook would need specific input to perform basic functions.  The volume create recipe for instance requires the aggregate.  The aggregate recipe has only create and destroy, so I do not see how chef would be able to collect data to determine which aggregate had the most available space or did not exceed a threshold.

 

As for the pro's of chef, I am not that familiar with the product.  It does look like it can automate most anything with a cookbook.  It just looks like the netapp cookbook is limited.

 

Mike

Re: CHEF vs WFA

Mike (geringer),

 

Thanks for the detailed response.It definitely added more clarify to my thought process and will help me make my decision.

 

-Prasad