Which characteristic distinguishes Ansible from Chef?

Question

Options

• AAnsible lacs redundancy support for the master server. Chef runs two masters in an active/active
• BAnsible uses Ruby to manage configurations. Chef uses YAML to manage configurations.
• CAnsible pushes the configuration to the client. Chef client pulls the configuration from the server.
• DThe Ansible server can run on Linux, Unix or Windows. The Chef server must run on Linux or

• A
  4% (1)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  93% (25)

Explanation

Ansible vs. Chef: Push vs. Pull

Option C is correct because Ansible uses a push-based model, where the control node actively sends (pushes) configuration changes directly to managed nodes via SSH, requiring no agent installed on clients. Chef, by contrast, uses a pull-based model, where the Chef client agent installed on each node periodically checks in with the Chef server to retrieve and apply its configuration.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Option A is incorrect because Ansible actually does support high availability, and Chef's multi-master setup description is inaccurate and oversimplified.
• Option B has the languages reversed - Ansible uses YAML for its playbooks, while Chef uses Ruby-based DSL (domain-specific language) for its recipes.
• Option D is incorrect because it's actually Ansible that has limitations on its control node (traditionally Linux/Unix), while the Chef server also runs on Linux - neither tool natively supports Windows as a server/control node.

Memory Tip: Think "Ansible = Active sender"** - Ansible pushes like you actively handing someone a gift, while Chef clients pull, like picking up your order at a counter. The YAML vs. Ruby distinction is also a common exam trick - remember "Ansible = YAML" (A comes before C in the alphabet, Y before R).

No community discussion yet for this question.