10 ms·

Rethinking Infrastructure as Code from Scratch

102 points by dguo 3y ago

durkjasen 3y ago
[dead]
bovermyer 3y ago
I don't think the author has tried Pulumi, which can do exactly this kind of thing.
- mattpallissard 3y ago
  Or cdktf > This is a bold statement I know. But I do not believe that infrastructure as code can ever get significantly simpler in its current form Everything can be made easier to use. Pick the subset of functionality you care about and package it up as a library or module for other teams to use. This was how I paid the bills for years.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  neat! https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  He's suggesting something closer to Pulumi than a declarative (Cloudformation, Terraform), but with more of an inheritance model to apply blanket attributes to the targeted resources. This is possible with Pulumi but requires a lot of boilerplate and some monkeypatching.
  - jaxxstorm 3y ago
    Well, Pulumi is declarative, so I don’t really understand where this is coming from
  - NathanKP 3y ago
    Author here. This is correct. I have used Pulumi and I love CDK. I think the models in Pulumi and CDK are both great, but they tend to be either too low level or too high level. For example Pulumi has a `awsx.ecs.FargateService` class that can deploy a container to AWS Fargate, but the API is limited and you don't really have the capability to remix it into other scenarios. For example you have the capability to attach a load balancer to a service as ingress, but what if you want to attach an API Gateway, or just setup a Route53 record for direct public IP ingress? CDK has a few more variations in what you can do but it tends to be even worse because it has class names like: `ApplicationLoadBalancedEc2Service` and `NetworkLoadBalancedFargateService`. Switching your infrastructure requires switching to an entirely different top level when you define your infrastructure. What I am proposing with the extensions interface is that we build more a class inheritance style model, kind of like CSS, to let people mix in alternative behaviors, alternate configurations, or even attached resources in an additive way, onto the existing infrastructure as code model. In the example prototype on Github you can see how this works: https://github.com/cdklabs/cdk-ecs-service-extensions https://github.com/cdklabs/cdk-ecs-service-extensions All types of mutations, from configuration mutations, to attached resources are just extensions that you can use the `ServiceDescription.add(Extension)` method to attach to your existing infrastructure, kind of like just layering on another CSS class onto your DOM element. I think for large and complex infrastructure this will be a more scalable, decouplable, and readable approach.
    - brodouevencode 3y ago
      I have deep concerns regarding imperative programming w.r.t infrastructure as code. It's mostly developer-experience related: as a developer I just want to tell AWS/GCP/Azure to "give me three boxes behind a load balancer in two regions". I know it's currently popular to hate YAML (or HCL) but it works and at a glance I can get a feel of what my infrastructure should look like. Therefore IMHO declarative should be the preferred standard for infrastructure. From an infrastructure management standpoint I completely agree with your take - do exactly this enough times and you get skew, compliance problems, pets instead of cattle. Hence you would want a CDK to facilitate those enterprise needs. Any sort of composability that doesn't break and has sane defaults would be ideal in a CDK. The problem I have with current CDKs is the amount of boilerplate to get this reproducibility, and then on top of that I have to write it in a non-declarative way. I like where your head is at but I do not think AWSCDK extensions are the answer. I think cdktf and Pulumi are a little bit closer to the right ("my right"!) answer but still have a ways to go.
ggeorgovassilis 3y ago
The author proposes to split structure from parametrisation similarly to how HTML and CSS work.
kristianpaul 3y ago
The author seems to considers that the only infrastructure available these days is “the cloud”
- zokier 3y ago
  I don't see how majority of the stuff wouldn't be applicable for on-prem too?
  - taeric 3y ago
    At large, the problem with on prem in this will be that a lot of the items in any of these "infrastructure as code" tools abstract a ton of things a human will have to do. Unless you are using "on prem" to be more akin to "private overprovisioned cloud." Adding a new machine to your setup? When is it delivered? Who is physically connecting it to power and a network rack? Adding additional storage? Same questions, basically. All of the software that goes onto these machines can still be done this way, of course. But that is bog standard deployment scripts. Well, it was. Not sure when we changed that.
    - VectorLock 3y ago
      Yeah there are people who are talking about blah blah blah cloud complexity and how on-prem is some panacea. What they're really getting at is "why go through all this trouble to setup autoscaling groups and load balancers when I'm perfectly fine running things on a single Pentium II whitebox sitting in my closet?" It doesn't seem to occur to them that although that might work _for them_ the whole reason we go through this labor is we need MORE than that.
jen20 3y ago
What the author appears to miss is that many existing IAC tools permit exactly this. CDK, CDKTF and Pulumi all use general purpose programming languages, so reusing parameter objects in the way that is described is trivial - indeed it is so close to second nature that I would not even think to write it down. Indeed, it's not uncommon to share functions that make such parameter objects via libraries in the package ecosystem of your choice. I agree that IaC needs a rethink, but that is more to do with the fact that declarative systems simply cannot model the facts on the ground without being substantially more complex.
- substation13 3y ago
  Adding a "real" programming language makes certain things easier, such as abstraction, but IMO they are too powerful for the task at hand. Do we really want an infrastructure description to be able to execute arbitrary code?
  - mkleczek 3y ago
    Well, it depends on the language. Some are quite good at restricting programs so that it is not possible to execute arbitrary code. Take a look at https://propellor.branchable.com https://propellor.branchable.com to see how Haskell might be used. Idris might be a good candidate as well. https://dhall-lang.org https://dhall-lang.org is quite interesting for these purposes as well (although it is not general purpose)
  - jen20 3y ago
    Yes, that’s exactly what we want. Things like Terraform also permit this via provisioners, and CloudFormation permits it via execution of lambda functions. Almost any non trivial infrastructure requires it.
    - substation13 3y ago
      With Terraform you can statically analyze the infrastructure definition with some guarantees of determinism etc. Arbitrary execution is allowed, as you say, but only in well-contained places, such as local_exec. How can this work if, say, TypeScript is used as the definition language?
twic 3y ago
Did that guy just suggest that to make infrastructure-as-code easier to understand we should make it more like CSS?
- twic 3y ago
  What i think we really need: 1. A low-level, open-ended language for describing infrastructure; it should have absolutely no facilities for abstraction, should be human-legible and machine-readable (so based on JSON, probably), and should be applicable to everything from configuring physical hosts and switches up to containers. 2. For each kind of infrastructure, a tool which can apply that language to the infrastructure; one for AWS, one for physical hosts, one for Kubernetes i suppose, etc. 3. Tools and libraries for producing documents in that language from more expressive, concise sources; could be a YAML-to-language compiler, could be a classic Ruby DSL, could be a Python API, could be this guy's CSS idea, could be a GPT prompt, whatever. Mostly, i want options for the last part to include libraries in sensible programming languages. Then i can just write real code, with full abstractive power, and the possibility of unit tests etc, to define my infrastructure, run it, and feed the output to the applier tool. No more enterprise YAML engineering. No more trying to shoehorn abstraction into Jinja2 templates. Just normal code. Because the code produces the language, rather than operating on resource directly, writing a new library / DSL / whatever, based on a cool new model which will solve everyone's problems, becomes very easy. You don't have to build a whole IaC tool from scratch. It also means you have an obvious and simple checkpoint to apply diffing, linting, security checks, etc. Not on the input code, but on the resulting document. And it means you have one place you can always look to determine the ground truth of what is going on.
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    You just described the role of Terraform. HCL is very JSON like and human readable
    - rirze 3y ago
      fwiw, you can write Terraform in JSON too. Not recommending it, but it's equivalent.
JohnMakin 3y ago
> I believe that infrastructure as code languages and tool assisted generators that we currently use are good, and they are taking steps in the right direction, but most of them are trying to patch over underlying complexity in a way that is fundamentally unscalable. Sure, I can get behind this. Yesterday I was trying to figure out how to give a name to EC2 instances generated by AWS-managed autoscaler group that’s created by a node group resource. Simple, right? should just be able to add a Name = $tag field to the node group somewhere to apply to the generated ec2’s? well, not quite. What you actually need is a separate autoscaling_group_tag resource. Well, that resource needs a reference to an autoscaling group arn. but I dont manage an autoscaling group, my node group does, so in the end I have to figure out how to reference it like: aws_node_group.node_group.resources.0.autoscaling_groups.0.arn well, not quite, you may need a try block around that, and maybe some lifecycle rules to get around weird race conditions. so yea. I’m not complaining about HCL or terraform. I find it much better than the alternatives. but lots of times my reaction to stuff like this is “there’s no way it has to be like this.”
- intelVISA 3y ago
  > “there’s no way it has to be like this.” It really doesn't, but alas: worship at the altar of unnecessary cloud complexity or be cast out to the on-prem Elysian field.
  - psd1 3y ago
    I think you've muddled "Elysian fields" (the reward of heroes) with "being put out to pasture" (superannuation).
    - intelVISA 3y ago
      It's both :)
  - TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
    Yeah. I’m following this discussion and not really finding myself able to relate very well. We’re using IAC almost exclusively; loads of Ansible particularly. Everything is essentially a Kubernetes manifest or a playbook in Ansible (which runs on Kubernetes). We exited the “all in on one cloud and all its services” methodology and it made our lives _vastly_ less complex. We don’t really need the kinds of complexity that brings. We picked two tools as close to the metal as was reasonably portable between any given VM or bare metal stack, and deploy everything else on top of that. It has made life _so_ much easier. Of course we still use some best in class services, but we avoid proprietary services that cannot be at least functionally replaced inside a week, unless we’re hosting them ourselves.
gdsdfe 3y ago
you lost me at css and typescript
cyberax 3y ago
My problem with the current IAS systems is the state storage. It should not be needed! Instead, the IAS tool should introspect the systems it's managing and build the necessary state on the fly.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  This does not work. Say I have resource A with property X=1 I define in IAC. Someone comes along and modifies X=2 outside of state. With your way, the IAC tool would see that change and think it was naturally part of the desired state, whereas stored state will catch the drift. And before anyone says “well dont modify outside of IAC” I say 1) that’s often impractical and 2) sometimes automation can modify resources outside of IAC beyond your control. Also, dynamically creating state creates all sorts of concurrency issues, which is another nice thing about stored state, you can put a lock on it.
  - scheub 3y ago
    The IAC tool could just as easily recognize the change as a part of the current state instead of the desired, and revert the drift. Whereas stored state would likely miss the drift without another process to compare and update the stored state against the actual.
  - x86x87 3y ago
    There are 2 different use cases. One is where you wany your IAC configuration to be the source of truth - any changes made outside of IAC are drift and should be fixed. The other one is where you want to take the changes thatbare made OOB and update your IAC configuration to mirror then - in this case you use the IAC config to document the state of your live infra.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    First, you can guard against it. Just periodically re-run the infra code in the "dry-run" mode (from a CI/CD system) and scream if you see any differences. Second, this is still fine. Don't make changes outside of the IAC control. And if you do make them, retro-fix the IAC files until there is no diff with the actual state. Third, IAC should have an option to ignore some changes. > Also, dynamically creating state creates all sorts of concurrency issues, which is another nice thing about stored state, you can put a lock on it. In my experience, this is not a big issue in practice. Production deployments should be done through some kind of CI/CD, and it naturally serializes builds. However, nothing stops you from adding locking without doing the full state management.
whoomp12342 3y ago
this is great, but I would argue the biggest issue with infrastructure as code is this: the structure and syntax for AWS is entirely different from Azure is entirely different from GCP. Instead of abstracting to CSS, I would argue modeling what Bytecode did in java for multi-operating system, we should do for infrastructure of code. That way, you could easily replicate in different environments, free yourself from vendor lock, and have readability/re-usability all in one. This is what I want from infrastructure as code and I have yet to see it.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  You can do that through abstraction. You “include” your Terraform Azure Provider or Terraform AWS Provider. At the end of the day, your module needs to know what it’s interacting with but not the higher level of abstraction. We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP
  - m_0x 3y ago
    > We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP Have you actually tested migrating Cloud Providers with your cloud-agnostic infrastructure?
    - firesteelrain 3y ago
      Yes we tested it with Azure Stack Hub and AWS Outposts
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    Meaning we made our own wrapper for the terraform azure provider. The higher level does not expose those technical details. It just says virtual machine.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    That's a lot like peppering your C code with #ifdef/#ifndef to write code that's "platform independent." Just like in the bad old days.
danielovichdk 3y ago
I use Azure. When I need to provision anything I have a powershell script that interacts with Azure CLI. My script sets up a new resource group for every service we create, logging, key vault, webapp/functions, and if needed some kind of data storage or queuing. In my powershell script I can via a variable indicate which environment I want to spin up: dev, staging, prod. I have one yaml file which is for my build and a build trigger which points to the above powershell script with the given environment. All environments: dev, staging or prod are setup manually with manual user assignments for deployment access etc. It's really lightweight but I also believe it's lightweight because we run a small services setup where each service takes care of its own provisioning. Terraform and Yaml are so verbose but that's not the most problematic. You can't execute those files from your local machine.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  You can execute Terraform from within Azure or a machine external to Azure. Just need a service principal
  - flanked-evergl 3y ago
    > Just need a service principal You can execute it also on your computer, and when an individual runs it, it really should not use a service principal, as those are intended for IAM of automated systems, not people. I run terraform against my Azure sandbox from my computer with nothing more than azure CLI credentials that were stored after I logged in with az.
    - firesteelrain 3y ago
      I don’t know if it particular to Azure Stack but I need a service principal
- naavis 3y ago
  Why not Bicep? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/bicep/overview?tabs=bicep https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manag... I have found it quite joyful to use with Azure.
jerf 3y ago
The thing that I think this could run up against is that in HTML+CSS it is fairly common to take an element and apply a whole bunch of properties in coordination with each other. That is, I'm going to set similar margins and paddings and fonts and many other properties on each element, and there are a lot of broad similarities. This is where CSS variables come in; even if I'm applying a color to a lot of elements I'm probably pulling from a much smaller palette and if I change one of them I want to change all. Cloud template definitions also have a lot of settings, but from what I can see, they are all different, all the time, for lots of good reasons. If I'm deploying a lot of different kinds of EC2 instances, I've got a whole bunch of settings that are going to be different for each type. Abstracting is a much different problem as a result. And it isn't just this moment in time, it's the evolution of the system over time, too. In code, overabstracting happens sometimes. In cloud architecture it is an all-the-time thing. It is amazingly easy to over-abstract into "hey this is our all-in-one EC2 template" and then whoops, one day I want to change the instance size for only one of my types of nodes, and now I either need to un-abstract that or add yet another parameter to my all-in-one EC2 template. The inner platform effect is very easy to stumble into in the infrastructure code as a result, where you have your "all-in-one" template for resource X that, in the end, just ends up offering every single setting the original resource did anyhow. By contrast, I've pondered the "focus on the links rather than the nodes" idea a few times, and there may be something there. However the big problem I see is that I like rolling up to a resource and having one place where either all the configuration is, or where there is a clear path for me to get to that point. Sticking with an instance just to keep things relatable, if I try to define an instance in terms of its relationship to the network, to the disk system, to the queues that it uses and the lambda it talks to and the autoscaling group it is a part of, now its configuration is distributed everywhere. One possible solution I've often pondered is modifying the underlying configuration management system to keep track of where things come from, e.g., if you have a string that represents the name of the system you're creating, but it is travelling through 5 distinct modules on its way to the final destination, it would be great if there was a way of looking at the final resource and saying "where exactly did that name come from?" and it would tell you the file name and line number, or the set of such things that went into it. Then at least you could query the state of a resource, and rather than just getting a pile of values, you'd be able to see where they are coming from, dig into all the things that went into all the decisions, that might free you to do link-based configuration rather than node-based configuration. But you'd probably need an interactive explorer; if for instance the various links can configure the size of the underlying disk and you take the max() of the various sizes (or the sum or whatever), you'd need to be able to look at everything that went into the max and all the sources of those values; it's more complicated than just tracking atomic values through the system. I've often wished for this even in just my small little configs I manage compared to some of you, and it is possible that this would be enough of an advantage to stand out in the crowd right now. (I think the "track where values came from and how they were used in computation" could be retrofitted onto existing systems. "Focus on links rather than nodes" will require something new; perhaps something that could leverage an existing system but would require a new language at a minimum.)
Niksko 3y ago
Some of the ideas here remind me of OAM: https://oam.dev/ https://oam.dev/ OAM has a model of components (things like containerized workloads, databases, queues), traits (scaling behavior, ingress) and in the latest draft, policies that apply across the entire application (high availability, security policy). It's all a little disjointed and seems to have lost steam. KubeVela is powering along, but it's the only implementation, and IMO it's highly opinionated about how you do deploys and works well for Alibaba and perhaps not for others. But it has some interesting ideas.
ChoHag 3y ago
[dead]
danw1979 3y ago
A CSS-like language for IaC is literally the last thing I would have expected someone to suggest. It’s an interesting idea. My initial reaction was “you can take my HCL from my cold dead hands” but I can’t seriously argue that Terraform is perfect and that I enjoy writing so much boilerplate.
datahead 3y ago
@cyberax said, "My problem with the current IAS systems is state storage. It should not be needed! Instead, the IAS tool should introspect the systems it's managing and build the necessary state on the fly. @firesteelrain said, "you can do that through abstraction. You "include" your Terraform Azure Provider or Terraform AWS Provider. At the end of the day, your module needs to know what it’s interacting with but not the higher level of abstraction. We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP" Single ops eng in a 3 person startup here. Ops eng is only one of my hats right now :) I found crossplane to be a solid tool for managing cloud inf. My assertion is that "the only multi-cloud is k8s" and crossplane's solution is "everything is a CRD". They have an extensive abstraction hierarchy over the base providers (GCP, TF, Azure, AWS, etc) so it's feasible to do what firesteelrain did. My client requirements span from- you must deploy into our tenant (could be any provider) to host this for us. I can setup my particular pile of yaml and say - "deploy a k8s cluster, loadbalancers, ingress, deployments, service accounts (both provider and k8s), managed certs, backend configs, workload identity mgmt, IAP" in one shot. I use kustomize to stitch any new, isolated environment together. So far, it's been a help to have a single API style (k8s, yaml) to interact with and declaratively define everything. ArgoCD manages my deployments and provides great visibility to active yaml state and event logs. I have not fully tested this across providers yet, but that's what crossplane promises with composite resource definitions, claims and compositions. I'm curious if any other crossplane users have feedback on what to expect when I go to abstract the next cloud provider. cyberax's note on state management is what led me away from TF. You still have to manage state somewhere, and crossplane's idea was- k8s is already really good at knowing what exists and what should exist. Let k8s do it. I thought that was clever enough to go with it and I haven't been dissapointed so far. The model extends the k8s ecosystem, and allows you to keep going even into things like db schema mgmt. Check out Atlas k8s operator for schema migrations- testing that next... I also like that I can start very simple, everything about my app defined in one repo- then as systems scale I can easily pull out things like "networking" or "data pipeline" and have them operating in their own deployment repo. Everything has a common pattern for IAC. Witchcraft.
throwa23432 3y ago
TypeScript will continue to dominate IaC since it has structural typing and set theoretic types and impeccable IDE/LSP support. I use Terraform HCL 40 hours a week, but it is severely lacking in lang design and type system and IDE/LSP experience.
agounaris 3y ago
I kind of see this as just another yaml abstraction on top of configuration templates. This is not new or different in any way from what we have now.
bob1029 3y ago
I've been side-stepping this whole conversation by using as little infrastructure as possible. I'd absolutely be digging into IAC abstractions if I had a circus on my hands and no say over why it had to be a circus. Going into a "cloud native" stance and continuing to micromanage containers, VMs, databases, message buses, reverse proxies, etc. seems absolutely ridiculous to me. We're now using exactly 2 major cloud components per region: A Hyperscale SQL database, and a FaaS runner. Both on serverless & consumption-based plans. There are zero VMs or containers in our new architecture. We certainly use things like DNS, AAD, VNets, etc., but it is mostly incidentally created by way of the primary offerings, and we only ever have to create it 3 times and its done forever and ever - Dev cloud, Prod cloud, DR cloud. And yes - we are "mono cloud", because any notion of all of Azure/AWS/GCP going down globally and not also dragging the rest of the internet with it is fantasy to me (and our customers). When you literally have one database to worry about for the entire universe, you stop thinking in terms of automation and start thinking in terms of strategic nuclear exchange. Granted, one big thing to screw up is a big liability, but only if you don't take extra precautions around process/procedure/backup/communication/etc. The benefit of doing more with less also makes conversations around disaster recovery and compliance so much easier. Our DR strategy is async log replication of our 1 database. I really like the abstraction of putting 100% of the business into one place it magically showing up on the other side of the flood event. How about this for a litmus test: If your proposed solution architecture is so complicated that you would be driven to IAC abstractions to manage it, perhaps we need to re-evaluate the expectations of the business relative to the technology.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- llama052 3y ago
  > Going into a "cloud native" stance and continuing to micromanage containers, VMs, databases, message buses, reverse proxies, etc. seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Honestly you're just paying the cloud provider to manage these things behind the scenes for you. Which is fine but also has its own risks. If you can keep your product that simple for the business then that's pretty incredible. I do suspect that's not a common situation though, at least in my experience.
time0ut 3y ago
The CSS like IaC language idea was not what I was expecting. It seems ok, but I was hoping for something deeper. What I mean is that I have always felt like there is tension or a mismatch between IaC and the underlying services in a more general sense. I’ve used CDK, Pulumi, Terraform, and CloudFormation and you can argue the merits of each. But they all kind of suck in the sense that you are programming a machine that was not really designed to be programmed. Sure AWS and all the rest have APIs to call and IaC is a decent abstraction over those APIs, but imagine if instead they exposed some lower level interface designed to execute IaC programs natively. I feel like that is the ultimate path to IaC that feels like actual programming.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  > The CSS like IaC language idea was not what I was expecting I took it as a clumsy (yet somehow descriptive) analogy.
beders 3y ago
Is this a trick to make infrastructure/devops engineers learn TypeScript? But, hey, when looking at the origins of OOP and its main uses (back then: Simulations and UI): Maybe this is exactly what one needs to describe and setup infrastructure and there have been various projects going in that direction. Make message passing truly async, throw in Garbage Collection, make it dynamic (i.e. creating a new instance of an object leads to some sort of deployment) and voila: Your traversable, introspect-able object graph is now a representation of your infrastructure.
codethief 3y ago
My thoughts have been going into another direction entirely: - We need to get rid of YAML. Not only because it's a horrible file format but also because it lacks proper variables, proper type safety, proper imports, proper anything. To this day, usage & declaration search in YAML-defined infrastructure still often amounts to a repo-wide string search. Why are we putting up with this? - The purely declarative approach to infrastructure feels wrong. For instance, if you've ever had to work on Gitlab pipelines, chances are that already on day 1 you started banging your head against the wall because you realized that what you wanted to implement is not possible currently – at least not without jumping through a ton of hoops –, and there's already an open ticket from 2020 in Gitlab's issue tracker. I used to think, how could the Gitlab devs possibly forget to think of that one really obvious use case?! But I've come to realize that it's not really their fault: If you create any declarative language, you as the language creator will have to define what all those declarations are supposed to mean and what the machine is supposed to do when it encounters them. Behind every declaration lies a piece of imperative code. Unfortunately, this means you'll need to think of all potential use cases of your language and your declarations, including combinations and permutations thereof. (There's a reason why it's taken so long for CSS to solve even the most basic use cases.) Meanwhile, imperative languages simply let the user decide what they want. They are much more flexible and powerful. I realize I'm not saying anything new here but it often feels like as if DevOps people have forgotten about the benefits of high-level programming languages. Now this is not to say we should start defining all our infrastructure in Java but let's at least allow for a little bit of imperativeness and expressiveness!
- oweiler 3y ago
  I think GitHub Actions got it right. Mostly declarative workflow, but with reusable Actions to extend the DSL.
- mst 3y ago
  Without suggesting it solves most (if any) of your complaints, https://yglu.io https://yglu.io is significantly less horrible than text templating YAML files like everybody else seems to want to do.
- danielvaughn 3y ago
formulathree 3y ago
What do you guys think of combining IaC with regular code? One language that does it all?
iAm25626 3y ago
Any similar solution for self-hosting focus, my own comprehensive data center infrastructure management + cloud? router/switches, load balancer, firewall, CGN, bare metal server, VM, Containers, Application and etc.
xorcist 3y ago
The split between parameterized classes and logic sounds a bit like the split between Puppet and Hiera. The idea was probably a good one, but something about the implementation made people go overboard with it. I feel IaC really peaked around Puppet 3 and Chef 1. IaC should be simple enough that people use it, and trivial to write providers for. People tend to glue much too large libraries to their IaC platforms and end up with a maintenance mess which is what kills it in the long run. However both the above projects went corporate and grew legs and arms and a billion other features that everybody won't use more than a subset of. Most people migrated to Ansible which kept more of the open source project culture and was simpler in design. Now people seems to use a little of this, a little of that. Some Ansible, some Terraform, some other stuff. They don't know what they're missing when the entire stack is built ground up from templated components defined in a common declarative language. Some people seem to really like Nix, which I haven't used professionally, but from what I've seen it seems to inherit the same type of design. There was an experimental project called cfg which worked in real time using hooks such as inotify which was promising, if there was a Kubernetes distribution made like that it would be really easy to manage components that didn't belong to a host.
- onlypositive 3y ago
  What ever happened to saltstack?
  - xorcist 3y ago
    I believe it is alive and well, but was never a big contender in the space. I personally have no experience due to professional reasons and a slight unease about home rolled crypto. I believe it is quite similar in concepts to Ansible/Puppet/Chef with a high level declaration of resources and provider implementations in a "real" language. Perhaps someone else can chime in!
- VectorLock 3y ago
  Chef and Puppet are configuration management systems, not really Infrastructure as Code.
fulafel 3y ago
There's only so much you can do by building on the current towering abstractions offered by GCP, AWS, etc. One of the main problems is just the slowness of it all. Dark is a good example of something that sidesteps this stuff by more fine grained integration of infrastructure and app code.
gattacamovie 3y ago
did anyone adopt in production https://crossplane.io https://crossplane.io ?
slotrans 3y ago
I was with it right up until this statement: > Centrally updatable: Sometimes best practice or corporate policy changes over time. You can update what LowCost or SecurityPolicy means later on, in one place, and that change will reapply to all resources that used it. It sounds great but it's not. This is essentially the Fragile Base Class problem. You may _think_ that updating one of these traits in a single place will be safe and do what you want, but it may be disastrous for whoever is using it. And you're not going to find out until you deploy it.
dmarinus 3y ago
Interesting comparison with the webbrowser stack! In that sense CDK (generate cloudformation) is more like PHP (generate HTML). I wonder when "Virtual DOM"s, AJAX and CSS preprocessors get introduced to IaC.

102 points by dguo 3y ago

durkjasen 3y ago

[dead]

bovermyer 3y ago

I don't think the author has tried Pulumi, which can do exactly this kind of thing.

mattpallissard 3y ago
Or cdktf > This is a bold statement I know. But I do not believe that infrastructure as code can ever get significantly simpler in its current form Everything can be made easier to use. Pick the subset of functionality you care about and package it up as a library or module for other teams to use. This was how I paid the bills for years.
downrightmike 3y ago
neat! https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi
brodouevencode 3y ago
He's suggesting something closer to Pulumi than a declarative (Cloudformation, Terraform), but with more of an inheritance model to apply blanket attributes to the targeted resources. This is possible with Pulumi but requires a lot of boilerplate and some monkeypatching.
- jaxxstorm 3y ago
  Well, Pulumi is declarative, so I don’t really understand where this is coming from
- NathanKP 3y ago
  Author here. This is correct. I have used Pulumi and I love CDK. I think the models in Pulumi and CDK are both great, but they tend to be either too low level or too high level. For example Pulumi has a `awsx.ecs.FargateService` class that can deploy a container to AWS Fargate, but the API is limited and you don't really have the capability to remix it into other scenarios. For example you have the capability to attach a load balancer to a service as ingress, but what if you want to attach an API Gateway, or just setup a Route53 record for direct public IP ingress? CDK has a few more variations in what you can do but it tends to be even worse because it has class names like: `ApplicationLoadBalancedEc2Service` and `NetworkLoadBalancedFargateService`. Switching your infrastructure requires switching to an entirely different top level when you define your infrastructure. What I am proposing with the extensions interface is that we build more a class inheritance style model, kind of like CSS, to let people mix in alternative behaviors, alternate configurations, or even attached resources in an additive way, onto the existing infrastructure as code model. In the example prototype on Github you can see how this works: https://github.com/cdklabs/cdk-ecs-service-extensions https://github.com/cdklabs/cdk-ecs-service-extensions All types of mutations, from configuration mutations, to attached resources are just extensions that you can use the `ServiceDescription.add(Extension)` method to attach to your existing infrastructure, kind of like just layering on another CSS class onto your DOM element. I think for large and complex infrastructure this will be a more scalable, decouplable, and readable approach.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    I have deep concerns regarding imperative programming w.r.t infrastructure as code. It's mostly developer-experience related: as a developer I just want to tell AWS/GCP/Azure to "give me three boxes behind a load balancer in two regions". I know it's currently popular to hate YAML (or HCL) but it works and at a glance I can get a feel of what my infrastructure should look like. Therefore IMHO declarative should be the preferred standard for infrastructure. From an infrastructure management standpoint I completely agree with your take - do exactly this enough times and you get skew, compliance problems, pets instead of cattle. Hence you would want a CDK to facilitate those enterprise needs. Any sort of composability that doesn't break and has sane defaults would be ideal in a CDK. The problem I have with current CDKs is the amount of boilerplate to get this reproducibility, and then on top of that I have to write it in a non-declarative way. I like where your head is at but I do not think AWSCDK extensions are the answer. I think cdktf and Pulumi are a little bit closer to the right ("my right"!) answer but still have a ways to go.

ggeorgovassilis 3y ago

The author proposes to split structure from parametrisation similarly to how HTML and CSS work.

kristianpaul 3y ago

The author seems to considers that the only infrastructure available these days is “the cloud”

zokier 3y ago
I don't see how majority of the stuff wouldn't be applicable for on-prem too?
- taeric 3y ago
  At large, the problem with on prem in this will be that a lot of the items in any of these "infrastructure as code" tools abstract a ton of things a human will have to do. Unless you are using "on prem" to be more akin to "private overprovisioned cloud." Adding a new machine to your setup? When is it delivered? Who is physically connecting it to power and a network rack? Adding additional storage? Same questions, basically. All of the software that goes onto these machines can still be done this way, of course. But that is bog standard deployment scripts. Well, it was. Not sure when we changed that.
  - VectorLock 3y ago
    Yeah there are people who are talking about blah blah blah cloud complexity and how on-prem is some panacea. What they're really getting at is "why go through all this trouble to setup autoscaling groups and load balancers when I'm perfectly fine running things on a single Pentium II whitebox sitting in my closet?" It doesn't seem to occur to them that although that might work _for them_ the whole reason we go through this labor is we need MORE than that.

jen20 3y ago

What the author appears to miss is that many existing IAC tools permit exactly this. CDK, CDKTF and Pulumi all use general purpose programming languages, so reusing parameter objects in the way that is described is trivial - indeed it is so close to second nature that I would not even think to write it down. Indeed, it's not uncommon to share functions that make such parameter objects via libraries in the package ecosystem of your choice. I agree that IaC needs a rethink, but that is more to do with the fact that declarative systems simply cannot model the facts on the ground without being substantially more complex.

substation13 3y ago
Adding a "real" programming language makes certain things easier, such as abstraction, but IMO they are too powerful for the task at hand. Do we really want an infrastructure description to be able to execute arbitrary code?
- mkleczek 3y ago
  Well, it depends on the language. Some are quite good at restricting programs so that it is not possible to execute arbitrary code. Take a look at https://propellor.branchable.com https://propellor.branchable.com to see how Haskell might be used. Idris might be a good candidate as well. https://dhall-lang.org https://dhall-lang.org is quite interesting for these purposes as well (although it is not general purpose)
- jen20 3y ago
  Yes, that’s exactly what we want. Things like Terraform also permit this via provisioners, and CloudFormation permits it via execution of lambda functions. Almost any non trivial infrastructure requires it.
  - substation13 3y ago
    With Terraform you can statically analyze the infrastructure definition with some guarantees of determinism etc. Arbitrary execution is allowed, as you say, but only in well-contained places, such as local_exec. How can this work if, say, TypeScript is used as the definition language?

twic 3y ago

Did that guy just suggest that to make infrastructure-as-code easier to understand we should make it more like CSS?

twic 3y ago
What i think we really need: 1. A low-level, open-ended language for describing infrastructure; it should have absolutely no facilities for abstraction, should be human-legible and machine-readable (so based on JSON, probably), and should be applicable to everything from configuring physical hosts and switches up to containers. 2. For each kind of infrastructure, a tool which can apply that language to the infrastructure; one for AWS, one for physical hosts, one for Kubernetes i suppose, etc. 3. Tools and libraries for producing documents in that language from more expressive, concise sources; could be a YAML-to-language compiler, could be a classic Ruby DSL, could be a Python API, could be this guy's CSS idea, could be a GPT prompt, whatever. Mostly, i want options for the last part to include libraries in sensible programming languages. Then i can just write real code, with full abstractive power, and the possibility of unit tests etc, to define my infrastructure, run it, and feed the output to the applier tool. No more enterprise YAML engineering. No more trying to shoehorn abstraction into Jinja2 templates. Just normal code. Because the code produces the language, rather than operating on resource directly, writing a new library / DSL / whatever, based on a cool new model which will solve everyone's problems, becomes very easy. You don't have to build a whole IaC tool from scratch. It also means you have an obvious and simple checkpoint to apply diffing, linting, security checks, etc. Not on the input code, but on the resulting document. And it means you have one place you can always look to determine the ground truth of what is going on.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  You just described the role of Terraform. HCL is very JSON like and human readable
  - rirze 3y ago
    fwiw, you can write Terraform in JSON too. Not recommending it, but it's equivalent.

JohnMakin 3y ago

> I believe that infrastructure as code languages and tool assisted generators that we currently use are good, and they are taking steps in the right direction, but most of them are trying to patch over underlying complexity in a way that is fundamentally unscalable. Sure, I can get behind this. Yesterday I was trying to figure out how to give a name to EC2 instances generated by AWS-managed autoscaler group that’s created by a node group resource. Simple, right? should just be able to add a Name = $tag field to the node group somewhere to apply to the generated ec2’s? well, not quite. What you actually need is a separate autoscaling_group_tag resource. Well, that resource needs a reference to an autoscaling group arn. but I dont manage an autoscaling group, my node group does, so in the end I have to figure out how to reference it like: aws_node_group.node_group.resources.0.autoscaling_groups.0.arn well, not quite, you may need a try block around that, and maybe some lifecycle rules to get around weird race conditions. so yea. I’m not complaining about HCL or terraform. I find it much better than the alternatives. but lots of times my reaction to stuff like this is “there’s no way it has to be like this.”

intelVISA 3y ago
> “there’s no way it has to be like this.” It really doesn't, but alas: worship at the altar of unnecessary cloud complexity or be cast out to the on-prem Elysian field.
- psd1 3y ago
  I think you've muddled "Elysian fields" (the reward of heroes) with "being put out to pasture" (superannuation).
  - intelVISA 3y ago
    It's both :)
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  Yeah. I’m following this discussion and not really finding myself able to relate very well. We’re using IAC almost exclusively; loads of Ansible particularly. Everything is essentially a Kubernetes manifest or a playbook in Ansible (which runs on Kubernetes). We exited the “all in on one cloud and all its services” methodology and it made our lives _vastly_ less complex. We don’t really need the kinds of complexity that brings. We picked two tools as close to the metal as was reasonably portable between any given VM or bare metal stack, and deploy everything else on top of that. It has made life _so_ much easier. Of course we still use some best in class services, but we avoid proprietary services that cannot be at least functionally replaced inside a week, unless we’re hosting them ourselves.

gdsdfe 3y ago

you lost me at css and typescript

cyberax 3y ago

My problem with the current IAS systems is the state storage. It should not be needed! Instead, the IAS tool should introspect the systems it's managing and build the necessary state on the fly.

JohnMakin 3y ago
This does not work. Say I have resource A with property X=1 I define in IAC. Someone comes along and modifies X=2 outside of state. With your way, the IAC tool would see that change and think it was naturally part of the desired state, whereas stored state will catch the drift. And before anyone says “well dont modify outside of IAC” I say 1) that’s often impractical and 2) sometimes automation can modify resources outside of IAC beyond your control. Also, dynamically creating state creates all sorts of concurrency issues, which is another nice thing about stored state, you can put a lock on it.
- scheub 3y ago
  The IAC tool could just as easily recognize the change as a part of the current state instead of the desired, and revert the drift. Whereas stored state would likely miss the drift without another process to compare and update the stored state against the actual.
- x86x87 3y ago
  There are 2 different use cases. One is where you wany your IAC configuration to be the source of truth - any changes made outside of IAC are drift and should be fixed. The other one is where you want to take the changes thatbare made OOB and update your IAC configuration to mirror then - in this case you use the IAC config to document the state of your live infra.
- cyberax 3y ago
  First, you can guard against it. Just periodically re-run the infra code in the "dry-run" mode (from a CI/CD system) and scream if you see any differences. Second, this is still fine. Don't make changes outside of the IAC control. And if you do make them, retro-fix the IAC files until there is no diff with the actual state. Third, IAC should have an option to ignore some changes. > Also, dynamically creating state creates all sorts of concurrency issues, which is another nice thing about stored state, you can put a lock on it. In my experience, this is not a big issue in practice. Production deployments should be done through some kind of CI/CD, and it naturally serializes builds. However, nothing stops you from adding locking without doing the full state management.

whoomp12342 3y ago

this is great, but I would argue the biggest issue with infrastructure as code is this: the structure and syntax for AWS is entirely different from Azure is entirely different from GCP. Instead of abstracting to CSS, I would argue modeling what Bytecode did in java for multi-operating system, we should do for infrastructure of code. That way, you could easily replicate in different environments, free yourself from vendor lock, and have readability/re-usability all in one. This is what I want from infrastructure as code and I have yet to see it.

firesteelrain 3y ago
You can do that through abstraction. You “include” your Terraform Azure Provider or Terraform AWS Provider. At the end of the day, your module needs to know what it’s interacting with but not the higher level of abstraction. We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP
- m_0x 3y ago
  > We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP Have you actually tested migrating Cloud Providers with your cloud-agnostic infrastructure?
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    Yes we tested it with Azure Stack Hub and AWS Outposts
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  Meaning we made our own wrapper for the terraform azure provider. The higher level does not expose those technical details. It just says virtual machine.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  That's a lot like peppering your C code with #ifdef/#ifndef to write code that's "platform independent." Just like in the bad old days.

danielovichdk 3y ago

I use Azure. When I need to provision anything I have a powershell script that interacts with Azure CLI. My script sets up a new resource group for every service we create, logging, key vault, webapp/functions, and if needed some kind of data storage or queuing. In my powershell script I can via a variable indicate which environment I want to spin up: dev, staging, prod. I have one yaml file which is for my build and a build trigger which points to the above powershell script with the given environment. All environments: dev, staging or prod are setup manually with manual user assignments for deployment access etc. It's really lightweight but I also believe it's lightweight because we run a small services setup where each service takes care of its own provisioning. Terraform and Yaml are so verbose but that's not the most problematic. You can't execute those files from your local machine.

firesteelrain 3y ago
You can execute Terraform from within Azure or a machine external to Azure. Just need a service principal
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  > Just need a service principal You can execute it also on your computer, and when an individual runs it, it really should not use a service principal, as those are intended for IAM of automated systems, not people. I run terraform against my Azure sandbox from my computer with nothing more than azure CLI credentials that were stored after I logged in with az.
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    I don’t know if it particular to Azure Stack but I need a service principal
naavis 3y ago
Why not Bicep? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/bicep/overview?tabs=bicep https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manag... I have found it quite joyful to use with Azure.

jerf 3y ago

The thing that I think this could run up against is that in HTML+CSS it is fairly common to take an element and apply a whole bunch of properties in coordination with each other. That is, I'm going to set similar margins and paddings and fonts and many other properties on each element, and there are a lot of broad similarities. This is where CSS variables come in; even if I'm applying a color to a lot of elements I'm probably pulling from a much smaller palette and if I change one of them I want to change all. Cloud template definitions also have a lot of settings, but from what I can see, they are all different, all the time, for lots of good reasons. If I'm deploying a lot of different kinds of EC2 instances, I've got a whole bunch of settings that are going to be different for each type. Abstracting is a much different problem as a result. And it isn't just this moment in time, it's the evolution of the system over time, too. In code, overabstracting happens sometimes. In cloud architecture it is an all-the-time thing. It is amazingly easy to over-abstract into "hey this is our all-in-one EC2 template" and then whoops, one day I want to change the instance size for only one of my types of nodes, and now I either need to un-abstract that or add yet another parameter to my all-in-one EC2 template. The inner platform effect is very easy to stumble into in the infrastructure code as a result, where you have your "all-in-one" template for resource X that, in the end, just ends up offering every single setting the original resource did anyhow. By contrast, I've pondered the "focus on the links rather than the nodes" idea a few times, and there may be something there. However the big problem I see is that I like rolling up to a resource and having one place where either all the configuration is, or where there is a clear path for me to get to that point. Sticking with an instance just to keep things relatable, if I try to define an instance in terms of its relationship to the network, to the disk system, to the queues that it uses and the lambda it talks to and the autoscaling group it is a part of, now its configuration is distributed everywhere. One possible solution I've often pondered is modifying the underlying configuration management system to keep track of where things come from, e.g., if you have a string that represents the name of the system you're creating, but it is travelling through 5 distinct modules on its way to the final destination, it would be great if there was a way of looking at the final resource and saying "where exactly did that name come from?" and it would tell you the file name and line number, or the set of such things that went into it. Then at least you could query the state of a resource, and rather than just getting a pile of values, you'd be able to see where they are coming from, dig into all the things that went into all the decisions, that might free you to do link-based configuration rather than node-based configuration. But you'd probably need an interactive explorer; if for instance the various links can configure the size of the underlying disk and you take the max() of the various sizes (or the sum or whatever), you'd need to be able to look at everything that went into the max and all the sources of those values; it's more complicated than just tracking atomic values through the system. I've often wished for this even in just my small little configs I manage compared to some of you, and it is possible that this would be enough of an advantage to stand out in the crowd right now. (I think the "track where values came from and how they were used in computation" could be retrofitted onto existing systems. "Focus on links rather than nodes" will require something new; perhaps something that could leverage an existing system but would require a new language at a minimum.)

Niksko 3y ago

Some of the ideas here remind me of OAM: https://oam.dev/ https://oam.dev/ OAM has a model of components (things like containerized workloads, databases, queues), traits (scaling behavior, ingress) and in the latest draft, policies that apply across the entire application (high availability, security policy). It's all a little disjointed and seems to have lost steam. KubeVela is powering along, but it's the only implementation, and IMO it's highly opinionated about how you do deploys and works well for Alibaba and perhaps not for others. But it has some interesting ideas.

ChoHag 3y ago

[dead]

danw1979 3y ago

A CSS-like language for IaC is literally the last thing I would have expected someone to suggest. It’s an interesting idea. My initial reaction was “you can take my HCL from my cold dead hands” but I can’t seriously argue that Terraform is perfect and that I enjoy writing so much boilerplate.

datahead 3y ago

@cyberax said, "My problem with the current IAS systems is state storage. It should not be needed! Instead, the IAS tool should introspect the systems it's managing and build the necessary state on the fly. @firesteelrain said, "you can do that through abstraction. You "include" your Terraform Azure Provider or Terraform AWS Provider. At the end of the day, your module needs to know what it’s interacting with but not the higher level of abstraction. We have done it at my work to make it cloud agnostic just in case we need to go to another CSP" Single ops eng in a 3 person startup here. Ops eng is only one of my hats right now :) I found crossplane to be a solid tool for managing cloud inf. My assertion is that "the only multi-cloud is k8s" and crossplane's solution is "everything is a CRD". They have an extensive abstraction hierarchy over the base providers (GCP, TF, Azure, AWS, etc) so it's feasible to do what firesteelrain did. My client requirements span from- you must deploy into our tenant (could be any provider) to host this for us. I can setup my particular pile of yaml and say - "deploy a k8s cluster, loadbalancers, ingress, deployments, service accounts (both provider and k8s), managed certs, backend configs, workload identity mgmt, IAP" in one shot. I use kustomize to stitch any new, isolated environment together. So far, it's been a help to have a single API style (k8s, yaml) to interact with and declaratively define everything. ArgoCD manages my deployments and provides great visibility to active yaml state and event logs. I have not fully tested this across providers yet, but that's what crossplane promises with composite resource definitions, claims and compositions. I'm curious if any other crossplane users have feedback on what to expect when I go to abstract the next cloud provider. cyberax's note on state management is what led me away from TF. You still have to manage state somewhere, and crossplane's idea was- k8s is already really good at knowing what exists and what should exist. Let k8s do it. I thought that was clever enough to go with it and I haven't been dissapointed so far. The model extends the k8s ecosystem, and allows you to keep going even into things like db schema mgmt. Check out Atlas k8s operator for schema migrations- testing that next... I also like that I can start very simple, everything about my app defined in one repo- then as systems scale I can easily pull out things like "networking" or "data pipeline" and have them operating in their own deployment repo. Everything has a common pattern for IAC. Witchcraft.

throwa23432 3y ago

TypeScript will continue to dominate IaC since it has structural typing and set theoretic types and impeccable IDE/LSP support. I use Terraform HCL 40 hours a week, but it is severely lacking in lang design and type system and IDE/LSP experience.

agounaris 3y ago

I kind of see this as just another yaml abstraction on top of configuration templates. This is not new or different in any way from what we have now.

bob1029 3y ago

I've been side-stepping this whole conversation by using as little infrastructure as possible. I'd absolutely be digging into IAC abstractions if I had a circus on my hands and no say over why it had to be a circus. Going into a "cloud native" stance and continuing to micromanage containers, VMs, databases, message buses, reverse proxies, etc. seems absolutely ridiculous to me. We're now using exactly 2 major cloud components per region: A Hyperscale SQL database, and a FaaS runner. Both on serverless & consumption-based plans. There are zero VMs or containers in our new architecture. We certainly use things like DNS, AAD, VNets, etc., but it is mostly incidentally created by way of the primary offerings, and we only ever have to create it 3 times and its done forever and ever - Dev cloud, Prod cloud, DR cloud. And yes - we are "mono cloud", because any notion of all of Azure/AWS/GCP going down globally and not also dragging the rest of the internet with it is fantasy to me (and our customers). When you literally have one database to worry about for the entire universe, you stop thinking in terms of automation and start thinking in terms of strategic nuclear exchange. Granted, one big thing to screw up is a big liability, but only if you don't take extra precautions around process/procedure/backup/communication/etc. The benefit of doing more with less also makes conversations around disaster recovery and compliance so much easier. Our DR strategy is async log replication of our 1 database. I really like the abstraction of putting 100% of the business into one place it magically showing up on the other side of the flood event. How about this for a litmus test: If your proposed solution architecture is so complicated that you would be driven to IAC abstractions to manage it, perhaps we need to re-evaluate the expectations of the business relative to the technology.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
llama052 3y ago
> Going into a "cloud native" stance and continuing to micromanage containers, VMs, databases, message buses, reverse proxies, etc. seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Honestly you're just paying the cloud provider to manage these things behind the scenes for you. Which is fine but also has its own risks. If you can keep your product that simple for the business then that's pretty incredible. I do suspect that's not a common situation though, at least in my experience.

time0ut 3y ago

The CSS like IaC language idea was not what I was expecting. It seems ok, but I was hoping for something deeper. What I mean is that I have always felt like there is tension or a mismatch between IaC and the underlying services in a more general sense. I’ve used CDK, Pulumi, Terraform, and CloudFormation and you can argue the merits of each. But they all kind of suck in the sense that you are programming a machine that was not really designed to be programmed. Sure AWS and all the rest have APIs to call and IaC is a decent abstraction over those APIs, but imagine if instead they exposed some lower level interface designed to execute IaC programs natively. I feel like that is the ultimate path to IaC that feels like actual programming.

brodouevencode 3y ago
> The CSS like IaC language idea was not what I was expecting I took it as a clumsy (yet somehow descriptive) analogy.

beders 3y ago

Is this a trick to make infrastructure/devops engineers learn TypeScript? But, hey, when looking at the origins of OOP and its main uses (back then: Simulations and UI): Maybe this is exactly what one needs to describe and setup infrastructure and there have been various projects going in that direction. Make message passing truly async, throw in Garbage Collection, make it dynamic (i.e. creating a new instance of an object leads to some sort of deployment) and voila: Your traversable, introspect-able object graph is now a representation of your infrastructure.

codethief 3y ago

My thoughts have been going into another direction entirely: - We need to get rid of YAML. Not only because it's a horrible file format but also because it lacks proper variables, proper type safety, proper imports, proper anything. To this day, usage & declaration search in YAML-defined infrastructure still often amounts to a repo-wide string search. Why are we putting up with this? - The purely declarative approach to infrastructure feels wrong. For instance, if you've ever had to work on Gitlab pipelines, chances are that already on day 1 you started banging your head against the wall because you realized that what you wanted to implement is not possible currently – at least not without jumping through a ton of hoops –, and there's already an open ticket from 2020 in Gitlab's issue tracker. I used to think, how could the Gitlab devs possibly forget to think of that one really obvious use case?! But I've come to realize that it's not really their fault: If you create any declarative language, you as the language creator will have to define what all those declarations are supposed to mean and what the machine is supposed to do when it encounters them. Behind every declaration lies a piece of imperative code. Unfortunately, this means you'll need to think of all potential use cases of your language and your declarations, including combinations and permutations thereof. (There's a reason why it's taken so long for CSS to solve even the most basic use cases.) Meanwhile, imperative languages simply let the user decide what they want. They are much more flexible and powerful. I realize I'm not saying anything new here but it often feels like as if DevOps people have forgotten about the benefits of high-level programming languages. Now this is not to say we should start defining all our infrastructure in Java but let's at least allow for a little bit of imperativeness and expressiveness!

oweiler 3y ago
I think GitHub Actions got it right. Mostly declarative workflow, but with reusable Actions to extend the DSL.
mst 3y ago
Without suggesting it solves most (if any) of your complaints, https://yglu.io https://yglu.io is significantly less horrible than text templating YAML files like everybody else seems to want to do.
danielvaughn 3y ago

formulathree 3y ago

What do you guys think of combining IaC with regular code? One language that does it all?

iAm25626 3y ago

Any similar solution for self-hosting focus, my own comprehensive data center infrastructure management + cloud? router/switches, load balancer, firewall, CGN, bare metal server, VM, Containers, Application and etc.

xorcist 3y ago

The split between parameterized classes and logic sounds a bit like the split between Puppet and Hiera. The idea was probably a good one, but something about the implementation made people go overboard with it. I feel IaC really peaked around Puppet 3 and Chef 1. IaC should be simple enough that people use it, and trivial to write providers for. People tend to glue much too large libraries to their IaC platforms and end up with a maintenance mess which is what kills it in the long run. However both the above projects went corporate and grew legs and arms and a billion other features that everybody won't use more than a subset of. Most people migrated to Ansible which kept more of the open source project culture and was simpler in design. Now people seems to use a little of this, a little of that. Some Ansible, some Terraform, some other stuff. They don't know what they're missing when the entire stack is built ground up from templated components defined in a common declarative language. Some people seem to really like Nix, which I haven't used professionally, but from what I've seen it seems to inherit the same type of design. There was an experimental project called cfg which worked in real time using hooks such as inotify which was promising, if there was a Kubernetes distribution made like that it would be really easy to manage components that didn't belong to a host.

onlypositive 3y ago
What ever happened to saltstack?
- xorcist 3y ago
  I believe it is alive and well, but was never a big contender in the space. I personally have no experience due to professional reasons and a slight unease about home rolled crypto. I believe it is quite similar in concepts to Ansible/Puppet/Chef with a high level declaration of resources and provider implementations in a "real" language. Perhaps someone else can chime in!
VectorLock 3y ago
Chef and Puppet are configuration management systems, not really Infrastructure as Code.

fulafel 3y ago

There's only so much you can do by building on the current towering abstractions offered by GCP, AWS, etc. One of the main problems is just the slowness of it all. Dark is a good example of something that sidesteps this stuff by more fine grained integration of infrastructure and app code.

gattacamovie 3y ago

did anyone adopt in production https://crossplane.io https://crossplane.io ?

slotrans 3y ago

I was with it right up until this statement: > Centrally updatable: Sometimes best practice or corporate policy changes over time. You can update what LowCost or SecurityPolicy means later on, in one place, and that change will reapply to all resources that used it. It sounds great but it's not. This is essentially the Fragile Base Class problem. You may _think_ that updating one of these traits in a single place will be safe and do what you want, but it may be disastrous for whoever is using it. And you're not going to find out until you deploy it.

dmarinus 3y ago

Interesting comparison with the webbrowser stack! In that sense CDK (generate cloudformation) is more like PHP (generate HTML). I wonder when "Virtual DOM"s, AJAX and CSS preprocessors get introduced to IaC.