3 ways Infrastructure as Code trumps Traditional Infrastructure Management
And how you should choose one over the other?
Infrastructure as Code vs Traditional Infrastructure is a big debate raging in the industry these days.
In one corner of this showdown is Infrastructure as Code or IaC – a revolutionary approach to managing IT infrastructure.
Imagine the experience of provisioning, configuring and managing your entire IT infrastructure using simple, human-readable code. It’s like having a recipe for your IT infrastructure that you can use any time you want.
With IaC, you are able to treat your infrastructure as you would any other software development project – with version control, testing and continuous integration and deployment.
If you have spent countless hours in the trenches configuring servers manually, nothing would please you more than seeing the power of infrastructure as code.
However, in the other corner, you have the 500-pound gorilla in the form of the so-called traditional infrastructure management. It has been the go-to approach to provision infrastructure for many years.
In the traditional approach, things such as configuration and maintenance of servers, networking equipment and other IT assets are done manually or using special scripts. Think of it as cooking without a recipe. You have all the ingredients but you have to figure out how to use the ingredients and in what order to get the desired outcome.
This can be a time-consuming and error-prone process. However, it’s a pretty familiar and comfortable approach for many IT professionals.
Nevertheless, with the ever-growing complexity of software and infrastructure, even seasoned IT professionals are finding it tough to manage infrastructure.
This makes IaC a far preferred approach.
Factors where IaC beats Traditional
There are some key areas where infrastructure-as-code differs heavily from the traditional approach.
Understanding those key areas is extremely important to make a valid decision about which approach to choose. Let’s look at them in more detail.
1 - Automation
There are three main activities that you need with an infrastructure setup
Provisioning of servers
Configuration of server
Deployment of applications
All of these 3 activities can be automated using infrastructure-as-code tools.
For example, with an IaC tool like Terraform, you can define your infrastructure as code by using a simple, human-readable language and then use Terraform to provision and configure your infrastructure, across multiple cloud providers such as AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform.
Automation is where infrastructure-as-code really shines compared to the traditional approach of managing infrastructure.
With IaC, you can turn tedious and repetitive infrastructure management tasks into a fun and exciting experience.
Imagine being able to provision and configure the entire IT infrastructure with just a few lines of code while sipping on a cappuccino. No more manual setups, no more errors and no more wasted time!
On the other hand, automation in the traditional approach is limited to a few specific tasks such as routine maintenance and reporting. Manual intervention is still required for many tasks, increasing the risk of errors and reducing efficiency.
2 - Repeatability
Another huge area of difference between the infrastructure-as-code vs traditional approach is repeatability.
With IaC, you can achieve repeatability in your infrastructure management. This opens up several possibilities such as:
Ability to consistently reproduce your production environment in test and development environments
Quick recovery from failures or disasters by reproducing your infrastructure in a fresh environment
Migrating your infrastructure to a new cloud provider
Repeatability is a big challenge in traditional infrastructure. Manual processes and human errors can cause inconsistencies between environments.
In the traditional approach, knowledge is often concentrated in the minds of a few key people. Even then, it’s tough to apply the same set of processes every single time. If documentation is present, it might not be updated.
This is nowhere near the sophistication you can achieve using Terraform configuration files or AWS Cloud Formation templates.
3 - Version Control
Who did it?
This is a common question asked in teams where infrastructure is managed manually by a group of people. There is always the traceability issue about someone changing the server configuration or modifying some settings.
Some teams try to keep track of changes manually using excel sheets. But in my view, such attempts usually end in failure over a period of time.
With IaC, you can manage the infrastructure using version control systems such as Git. This allows you to:
Keep track of changes to your infrastructure, including the answer to questions such as who made the change and when was it made
Revert to previous versions of the change in case of any issues or errors
Improved team collaboration, allowing multiple people to make changes to the infrastructure in a controlled and organized manner
How to make the right choice?
Despite the overwhelming advantages provided by IaC, one cannot completely rule out traditional infrastructure management.
Sometimes, you may have to make a choice between the two.
Here are some scenarios where a particular approach may be more appropriate than the other:
Use Infrastructure as Code when:
You require repeatable and scalable infrastructure
You want to manage infrastructure as code with proper version control
You have a need to collaborate with multiple team members on infrastructure management
You need to manage infrastructure across multiple environments and cloud providers
Use Traditional Approach when:
You prefer manual and fine-grained control over your infrastructure
You don’t want to incur additional software license costs
Your infrastructure is small with minimal management requirements
You have a high degree of customization in your infrastructure that would not be suitable for automation
That’s it!
IaC provides the benefits of automation, repeatability and version control. On the other hand, the traditional infrastructure approach offers fine-grained control and more direct management.
When making a decision about the IaC vs traditional approach debate, it’s important to consider the specific needs and goals of your organization. You should choose the approach that best meets those requirements.
Ultimately, the most important thing is to choose a management approach that helps your organization meet its infrastructure management goals and objectives.
Of course, if given the choice, it would be beneficial for a developer to explore infrastructure-as-code since more and more companies are looking to leverage it in the long term.
With this view, I will be coming up with a Deep Dive into the topic of IaC by the end of the week.
So stay tuned!