Pros of kubespray

• More flexible and customizable for various Kubernetes distributions
• Supports multi-cloud and bare-metal deployments
• Active community development and frequent updates

Cons of kubespray

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less integrated with specific cloud providers compared to OpenShift
• May require more manual configuration for advanced features

Code Comparison

kubespray:

all:
  vars:
    ansible_user: ubuntu
    ansible_become: true
    kubespray_version: v2.18.0
    kube_version: v1.22.0
    cluster_name: mycluster

openshift-ansible:

openshift_deployment_type: origin
openshift_release: "3.11"
openshift_master_default_subdomain: apps.example.com
openshift_master_cluster_hostname: master.example.com
openshift_master_cluster_public_hostname: master.example.com

Key Differences

• kubespray is more focused on vanilla Kubernetes deployments, while openshift-ansible is specifically tailored for OpenShift
• openshift-ansible includes additional components and features specific to the OpenShift ecosystem
• kubespray offers more flexibility in terms of networking and container runtime options
• openshift-ansible provides a more opinionated and integrated solution for enterprise environments

Both projects use Ansible for deployment and configuration management, but their target environments and use cases differ significantly.

Pros of ansible-examples

• Broader scope, covering various Ansible use cases and scenarios
• More beginner-friendly with simpler examples and explanations
• Regularly updated with new examples and best practices

Cons of ansible-examples

• Less focused on specific enterprise applications or platforms
• May lack depth for complex, production-ready deployments
• Not tailored for OpenShift-specific configurations and requirements

Code Comparison

ansible-examples:

---
- hosts: webservers
  vars:
    http_port: 80
    max_clients: 200
  tasks:
    - name: ensure apache is at the latest version
      yum: name=httpd state=latest

openshift-ansible:

---
- name: Configure OpenShift
  hosts: oo_masters_to_config
  roles:
    - openshift_facts
    - openshift_master
    - openshift_node

The ansible-examples repository provides general-purpose Ansible playbooks for various scenarios, while openshift-ansible focuses specifically on OpenShift deployment and configuration. The code snippets demonstrate this difference, with ansible-examples showing a simple web server setup and openshift-ansible displaying OpenShift-specific roles and configurations.

Pros of kops

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing specifically on Kubernetes cluster deployment
• Supports multiple cloud providers (AWS, GCP, DigitalOcean) out of the box
• Easier to get started with for pure Kubernetes deployments

Cons of kops

• Limited to Kubernetes-only deployments, lacking additional features provided by OpenShift
• Less extensive enterprise support compared to OpenShift's offerings
• May require more manual configuration for advanced scenarios

Code Comparison

kops example:

kops create cluster --zones=us-west-2a --name=mydomain.com
kops update cluster mydomain.com --yes

openshift-ansible example:

- hosts: masters
  roles:
    - openshift_master
    - openshift_node

Key Differences

• openshift-ansible is designed for OpenShift, which includes Kubernetes plus additional features
• kops is more focused on pure Kubernetes deployments
• openshift-ansible uses Ansible playbooks, while kops uses its own CLI and configuration files
• kops has built-in support for multiple cloud providers, while openshift-ansible is more flexible but may require additional configuration

Both tools aim to simplify cluster deployment, but they cater to different use cases and levels of complexity. kops is generally easier for simple Kubernetes deployments, while openshift-ansible offers more features and customization options for enterprise environments.

Pros of Helm

• Lightweight and easy to use package manager for Kubernetes
• Supports templating and versioning of application deployments
• Large ecosystem of pre-built charts for common applications

Cons of Helm

• Less comprehensive than OpenShift-Ansible for full cluster management
• May require additional tools for complete infrastructure provisioning
• Limited to Kubernetes, while OpenShift-Ansible covers broader OpenShift features

Code Comparison

OpenShift-Ansible (playbook example):

- name: Install OpenShift
  hosts: masters
  tasks:
    - name: Install OpenShift packages
      yum:
        name: atomic-openshift
        state: present

Helm (chart example):

apiVersion: v2
name: my-app
version: 1.0.0
dependencies:
  - name: nginx
    version: 1.2.3
    repository: https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami

OpenShift-Ansible focuses on full cluster provisioning and management, while Helm specializes in application deployment and package management within Kubernetes environments. OpenShift-Ansible provides more extensive control over the entire OpenShift ecosystem, whereas Helm offers a simpler, more portable solution for deploying applications across different Kubernetes clusters.

Pros of Rancher

• Easier to install and manage, with a user-friendly web UI
• Supports multiple Kubernetes distributions and cloud providers
• More lightweight and flexible for smaller deployments

Cons of Rancher

• Less enterprise-focused features compared to OpenShift
• Smaller ecosystem and community support
• May require additional tools for advanced networking and security

Code Comparison

OpenShift-Ansible uses Ansible playbooks for deployment:

- name: Install OpenShift
  hosts: all
  roles:
    - openshift_node
    - openshift_control_plane

Rancher uses Docker commands for installation:

docker run -d --restart=unless-stopped \
  -p 80:80 -p 443:443 \
  --privileged \
  rancher/rancher:latest

Summary

OpenShift-Ansible is a more comprehensive, enterprise-grade solution with a steeper learning curve, while Rancher offers a more accessible and flexible approach to Kubernetes management. OpenShift-Ansible excels in large, complex deployments, whereas Rancher is well-suited for smaller to medium-sized environments and those new to container orchestration. The choice between the two depends on specific organizational needs, existing infrastructure, and team expertise.