Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Eucalyptus vs Terraform: What are the differences?
Key Differences between Eucalyptus and Terraform
Eucalyptus and Terraform are both popular tools used in cloud computing, but they have some key differences. Here are the six main differences:
Architecture: Eucalyptus is a private cloud platform that provides infrastructure services compatible with Amazon Web Services (AWS). It aims to create a seamless hybrid cloud environment by seamlessly integrating with AWS services. On the other hand, Terraform is an infrastructure as code tool that allows for the provisioning and management of cloud resources across various providers, including AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and more.
Declarative vs. Imperative: Eucalyptus follows an imperative model, where users need to define specific steps to achieve their desired infrastructure state. Meanwhile, Terraform operates on a declarative model, allowing users to describe the desired infrastructure state without specifying the exact steps to get there. Terraform then analyzes the changes and executes the necessary actions to achieve the desired state.
Community and Ecosystem: Terraform has a larger and more active community compared to Eucalyptus. It has a vast ecosystem of plugins and modules contributed by the community, which allows for easier integration with an extensive range of cloud services and providers. Eucalyptus, while being widely used in certain industries, has a smaller community and a more limited ecosystem.
Vendor Lock-in: Eucalyptus is designed to provide compatibility with AWS, allowing users to adopt a hybrid cloud approach and leverage AWS services seamlessly. However, this compatibility also means that users may face some degree of vendor lock-in if they heavily rely on AWS-specific features. In contrast, Terraform aims to provide an agnostic cross-cloud and cross-provider infrastructure as code solution, reducing the risk of vendor lock-in.
Granularity of Control: Eucalyptus offers fine-grained control over the infrastructure resources, allowing users to manage and configure the underlying servers, storage, and network components. Terraform, on the other hand, focuses on the provisioning and management of higher-level cloud resources such as virtual machines, databases, load balancers, and network infrastructure. It provides less control over the underlying hardware components.
Maturity and Adoption: Eucalyptus has been around for quite some time and has gained considerable adoption in specific industries and organizations. It has a more mature codebase and a well-established user base. In contrast, Terraform is relatively newer but rapidly gaining popularity due to its ease of use, versatility, and support for multiple cloud providers.
In summary, Eucalyptus is a private cloud platform focused on hybrid cloud integration with AWS, while Terraform is an infrastructure as code tool for provisioning and managing cloud resources across various providers. Eucalyptus follows an imperative model, has a smaller community, and offers fine-grained control. Meanwhile, Terraform follows a declarative model, has a larger community, supports multiple providers, and aims to reduce vendor lock-in.
Ok, so first - AWS Copilot is CloudFormation under the hood, but the way it works results in you not thinking about CFN anymore. AWS found the right balance with Copilot - it's insanely simple to setup production-ready multi-account environment with many services inside, with CI/CD out of the box etc etc. It's pretty new, but even now it was enough to launch Transcripto, which uses may be a dozen of different AWS services, all bound together by Copilot.
Because Pulumi uses real programming languages, you can actually write abstractions for your infrastructure code, which is incredibly empowering. You still 'describe' your desired state, but by having a programming language at your fingers, you can factor out patterns, and package it up for easier consumption.
We use Terraform to manage AWS cloud environment for the project. It is pretty complex, largely static, security-focused, and constantly evolving.
Terraform provides descriptive (declarative) way of defining the target configuration, where it can work out the dependencies between configuration elements and apply differences without re-provisioning the entire cloud stack.
AdvantagesTerraform is vendor-neutral in a way that it is using a common configuration language (HCL) with plugins (providers) for multiple cloud and service providers.
Terraform keeps track of the previous state of the deployment and applies incremental changes, resulting in faster deployment times.
Terraform allows us to share reusable modules between projects. We have built an impressive library of modules internally, which makes it very easy to assemble a new project from pre-fabricated building blocks.
DisadvantagesSoftware is imperfect, and Terraform is no exception. Occasionally we hit annoying bugs that we have to work around. The interaction with any underlying APIs is encapsulated inside 3rd party Terraform providers, and any bug fixes or new features require a provider release. Some providers have very poor coverage of the underlying APIs.
Terraform is not great for managing highly dynamic parts of cloud environments. That part is better delegated to other tools or scripts.
Terraform state may go out of sync with the target environment or with the source configuration, which often results in painful reconciliation.
I personally am not a huge fan of vendor lock in for multiple reasons:
- I've seen cost saving moves to the cloud end up costing a fortune and trapping companies due to over utilization of cloud specific features.
- I've seen S3 failures nearly take down half the internet.
- I've seen companies get stuck in the cloud because they aren't built cloud agnostic.
I choose to use terraform for my cloud provisioning for these reasons:
- It's cloud agnostic so I can use it no matter where I am.
- It isn't difficult to use and uses a relatively easy to read language.
- It tests infrastructure before running it, and enables me to see and keep changes up to date.
- It runs from the same CLI I do most of my CM work from.
Context: I wanted to create an end to end IoT data pipeline simulation in Google Cloud IoT Core and other GCP services. I never touched Terraform meaningfully until working on this project, and it's one of the best explorations in my development career. The documentation and syntax is incredibly human-readable and friendly. I'm used to building infrastructure through the google apis via Python , but I'm so glad past Sung did not make that decision. I was tempted to use Google Cloud Deployment Manager, but the templates were a bit convoluted by first impression. I'm glad past Sung did not make this decision either.
Solution: Leveraging Google Cloud Build Google Cloud Run Google Cloud Bigtable Google BigQuery Google Cloud Storage Google Compute Engine along with some other fun tools, I can deploy over 40 GCP resources using Terraform!
Check Out My Architecture: CLICK ME
Check out the GitHub repo attached
Pros of Eucalyptus
Pros of Terraform
- Infrastructure as code121
- Declarative syntax73
- Planning45
- Simple28
- Parallelism24
- Well-documented8
- Cloud agnostic8
- It's like coding your infrastructure in simple English6
- Immutable infrastructure6
- Platform agnostic5
- Extendable4
- Automation4
- Automates infrastructure deployments4
- Portability4
- Lightweight2
- Scales to hundreds of hosts2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Eucalyptus
Cons of Terraform
- Doesn't have full support to GKE1