helmfile VS os

What we’re going to install into the newly created AKS cluster is located in the helm directory. The descriptive Helmfile approach enables us to define applications and their settings in the helmfile.yaml file.

Is there any alternative to https://github.com/roboll/helmfile you are currently using in your company.

Interesting, I have approached this problem using Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to define a “platform release package.”

To make managing the Helm deployments a little easier I used helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile).

But in general it's always easier to keep things quite separated. Meaning in separate helm releases. If you want to be able to manage things "together" at will, then you can use helmfile ( https://github.com/roboll/helmfile )

I agree; helm is too declarative.

Whenever I can, I use helmfile[0] for storing variables for helm since it does add a declarative layer on top of helm.

0 - https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I went through the Helmfile repo Readme to figure out the difference between helmfile sync and helmfile apply. It seems like unlike the apply command, the sync command doesn't do a diff and helm upgrades the hell out of all releases 😃. But from the word sync, you'd expect the command to apply those releases that have been changed. There is also mention of the potential application of helmfile apply to periodically syncing of releases. Why not use helmfile sync for this purpose? Overall, the difference didn't become crystal clear, and I though there could probably be more to it. So, I'm asking.

helmfile is something i’ve used in the past for this https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

I always felt like dependencies in helm are for very simple non-coupled packages. I many times use Helmfile (https://github.com/roboll/helmfile) to manage dependencies instead of banging my head with vanilla Helm.

Once you do that, learn to create dynamic helm charts that use go templating and conditionals: https://github.com/roboll/helmfile

And in the end we got a screenshot of a kernel-dump when we moved some nodes to VMs, which led us to this

I wonder if that's a job for rancherOS since everything in rancherOS is a docker container, https://rancher.com/docs/os/v1.x/en/ . Or is there some better compact OS?

The closest I can think of is the docker. If OP likes docker in their docker then they can start with RancherOS.

RancherOS 2.0.0 alpha01 was out 2 days ago : https://github.com/rancher/os/releases/tag/v2.0.0-alpha01

Was it RancherOS?

> RancherOS is the smallest, easiest way to run Docker in production. Every process in RancherOS is a container managed by Docker. This includes system services such as udev and syslog. Because it only includes the services necessary to run Docker, RancherOS is significantly smaller than most traditional operating systems.

https://rancher.com/docs/os/v1.x/en/

The nodes are thus totally neutral now. As a result, their templates are greatly simplified, and they can now easily be managed in an immutable way. This new paradigm opened the way to new Operating Systems specialized for container orchestration, such as CoreOS or RancherOS, whose life cycles are meant to be managed with an immutable workflow.

For this example, I'll be using a VPS on DigitalOcean running RancherOS with 2 CPUs and 2GB RAM. RancherOS a lightweight OS designed for hosting containers. If you'd prefer to use another distribution, you'll need to make sure Docker Engine is installed. Instructions for installing Docker Engine can be found in the Docker documentation. Any cloud provider will work just fine but I'd suggest the specs above as minimums.

Edit: here’s a link : https://github.com/rancher/os/issues/3000

When you say RancherOS do you mean "using Rancher" or do you also mean using RancherOS for your k8s nodes?