You are an AWS Cloud Architect in a big company.
Your company is under a planning phase for a fresh project.
The project needs to be developed and deployed completely in AWS and various deployment services are now considered.
Your team members are debating on which service should be used between OpsWorks and CloudFormation.
For the below options, which ones should you consider helping to choose the most appropriate service? Select 3.
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D. E.Correct Answer - A, C, D.
The question asks for the items that help with choosing the service of OpsWorks or CloudFormation.
One major feature of OpsWorks is that it has used Chef.
For OpsWorks, it is very common that a custom recipe is needed.
That might be a simple task if the team has a Chef expert.
But if there is not, there is a pretty steep learning curve.
No matter in which way, the project's schedule should be always considered.
Option A is CORRECT because the experience of Chef and Recipes is a key factor to choose OpsWorks or not.
Option B is incorrect because the OpsWorks ( except Opsworks-chef automate ) and CloudFormation templates and stacks themselves do not bring cost.
You only need to pay for the resources that are set up in stacks.
Option C is CORRECT because the project's schedule is also a key factor to consider.
Option D is CORRECT because CloudFormation is better at a lower level scripting if the team prefers to have a deeper infrastructure control with code.
Option E is incorrect: OpsWorks supports spot EC2 instances too.
Refer tohttps://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/registering-spot-instances-with-aws-opsworks-stacks/.
As an AWS Cloud Architect, you are responsible for choosing the appropriate service for a fresh project in AWS. Your team members are debating between OpsWorks and CloudFormation. Here are the three factors that you should consider to help choose the most appropriate service:
The experience of Chef and Recipe: OpsWorks is a service that offers Chef automation to manage infrastructure. It can automate tasks such as software configurations and deployments. However, if the team lacks knowledge of Chef, OpsWorks may not be the best choice as the learning curve can be steep. In this case, CloudFormation may be a better choice as it does not require knowledge of Chef.
The budget of the whole project: OpsWorks (except Opsworks-chef automate) and CloudFormation templates and stacks are charged differently. If the project has a tight budget, you may want to choose the service that fits better with your budget. For example, if OpsWorks is more cost-effective, it may be a better choice than CloudFormation.
The schedule of the project: If the timeline is not under pressure, the team can still choose to learn new skills such as Chef for OpsWorks or JSON scripting for CloudFormation. However, if the timeline is tight, the team may not have enough time to learn new skills. In this case, the team may need to choose the service that requires less time to deploy.
Additional factors to consider:
Deeper control of infrastructure setup: If the team prefers to have deeper control over the infrastructure setup, CloudFormation may be a better choice. CloudFormation allows users to define the entire infrastructure in a template, including networking, EC2 instances, and other resources. This gives users more control over the infrastructure setup. In contrast, OpsWorks can take care of some basic configurations automatically, but it may not offer the same level of control as CloudFormation.
Spot EC2 instances: If the project requires the use of spot EC2 instances, CloudFormation should be used as OpsWorks does not support spot instances.
In conclusion, choosing the appropriate service between OpsWorks and CloudFormation depends on various factors such as the team's experience with Chef, the budget of the project, the schedule of the project, the level of control over infrastructure setup, and the use of spot EC2 instances. By considering these factors, you can choose the service that best fits the project's requirements.