What Common Trait Do Ansible and Chef Share?

What is a common trait between Ansible and Chef?

Both rely on a declarative approach.
Both are used for mutable infrastructure. Source Reference Answer
Both require a client to be installed on hosts.
Both rely on NETCONF.

Community Votes

62%

38%

62% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Community Insight

It tests your ability to differentiate between infrastructure provisioning paradigms (immutable) and configuration management paradigms (mutable), with the common trap being the conflation of declarative syntax with actual infrastructure lifecycle management.

This question evaluates the fundamental operational paradigm shared by popular configuration management tools. Industry standards and exam consensus classify both Ansible and Chef as solutions designed for managing mutable infrastructure, distinguishing them from immutable provisioning platforms.

Candidates frequently select Option A, assuming both tools are strictly declarative due to Ansible's YAML playbooks and Chef's resource abstractions. However, Chef relies heavily on Ruby-based procedural logic, and both tools inherently modify running systems rather than rebuilding them from scratch, making 'mutable infrastructure' the more accurate and exam-aligned common trait.

Community Discussion (13 comments)

cjoyce1980 👍 1 Selected: A

A. Both rely on a declarative approach. Here's a breakdown of the other options: B. Both are used for mutable infrastructure: While both Ansible and Chef can be used for mutable infrastructure, they are not exclusively tied to it. They can also be used for immutable infrastructure, depending on the specific use case. C. Both require a client to be installed on hosts: This is not true for Ansible. Ansible uses a push-based approach, where the control node sends commands to managed nodes using SSH or other protocols. Chef, on the other hand, requires an agent to be installed on managed nodes. D. Both rely on NETCONF: NETCONF is a configuration management protocol primarily used for network devices. Neither Ansible nor Chef relies on NETCONF for their core functionalities. Therefore, the common trait between Ansible and Chef is their use of a declarative approach. This means that you define the desired state of your infrastructure, and the tools will automatically make the necessary changes to achieve that state.

77a59d0 👍 1

Answer B is correct

Shri_Fcb10 👍 1 Selected: A

Option B, "Both are used for mutable infrastructure," is not the best choice because Ansible and Chef can be used for both mutable and immutable infrastructure.

c05e44e 👍 3

Answer is B Configuration management tools such as Chef, Puppet, and Ansible typically default to a mutable infrastructure paradigm. Chef and Ansible encourage a procedural style where you write code that specifies, step-by-step, how to to achieve some desired end state. https://blog.gruntwork.io/why-we-use-terraform-and-not-chef-puppet-ansible-saltstack-or-cloudformation-7989dad2865c

masrur 👍 2

Answer is B: Chef and Ansible(mostly hybrid) are based on a procedural or imperative style where you write code that specifies a complete step-by-step process on how to achieve the desired end state

Adalberto 👍 1 Selected: A

The trait mentioned in option B, "Both are used for mutable infrastructure," does not apply to both Ansible and Chef. While it is true that both tools are used for configuration management and automation, the statement about mutable infrastructure does not accurately represent a common trait between Ansible and Chef. Therefore, the correct common trait is that both rely on a declarative approach (option A). If you have any more questions or need further explanations, feel free to ask!

stefanxradu 👍 3 Selected: B

B is correct

Adalberto 👍 1 Selected: A

A is the answear

RickAO76 👍 2 Selected: B

Vote changed to B here https://blog.gruntwork.io/why-we-use-terraform-and-not-chef-puppet-ansible-saltstack-or-cloudformation-7989dad2865c#b264

babanaber 👍 2 Selected: B

given answer seems to be correct https://blog.gruntwork.io/why-we-use-terraform-and-not-chef-puppet-ansible-saltstack-or-cloudformation-7989dad2865c#:~:text=Configuration%20management%20tools%20such%20as%20Chef%2C%20Puppet%2C%20and%20Ansible%20typically%20default%20to%20a%20mutable%20infrastructure%20paradigm.

leehyoeun 👍 2 Selected: B

i think answer is b

shefo1 👍 1 Selected: A

wrong , A is right

RickAO76 👍 1 Selected: A

Ansible - YAML based playbooks Chef - Ruby based recipes / Cookbook

Comments & Corrections

No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Expert Analysis

Understanding Mutable vs. Immutable Infrastructure

The core distinction tested here lies in how infrastructure is managed throughout its lifecycle. Tools like Terraform, Packer, and cloud-init focus on immutable infrastructure, where servers are destroyed and replaced rather than modified. In contrast, Ansible and Chef are configuration management tools explicitly designed for mutable infrastructure. They connect to running systems and apply changes incrementally to reach a desired state, which aligns perfectly with Option B. As highlighted in the widely cited Gruntwork engineering blog referenced by multiple candidates, CM tools "typically default to a mutable infrastructure paradigm."

Why Declarative Syntax Does Not Equal Declarative Infrastructure

Option A is the most debated distractor. While Ansible uses YAML playbooks that read declaratively, Chef relies on Ruby recipes that are largely procedural/imperative, specifying step-by-step instructions. Even when using DSLs, both tools operate within a mutable environment. The exam focuses on the infrastructure paradigm rather than the syntax style, making B the stronger, more universally accepted answer in the DevNet curriculum.

Eliminating Other Options

Option C is incorrect because Ansible is famously agentless, communicating over SSH/WinRM without requiring a persistent client daemon on target hosts. Chef, however, requires the chef-client agent.
Option D is incorrect because NETCONF is a network management protocol specifically for network devices (routers, switches). Neither Ansible nor Chef exclusively or primarily relies on it for general-purpose configuration management.

Official Reference

https://blog.gruntwork.io/why-we-use-terraform-and-not-chef-puppet-ansible-saltstack-or-cloudformation-7989dad2865chttps://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/data-center-virtualization/network-function-virtualization/devnet.htmlhttps://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/user_guide/playbooks.htmlhttps://docs.chef.io/workstation/recipes/

Exam Strategy

When comparing infrastructure tools, always separate "syntax paradigm" (declarative vs. procedural) from "operational paradigm" (mutable vs. immutable). For the DevNet exam, remember that Terraform and cloud providers handle immutable provisioning, while Ansible, Chef, and Puppet handle mutable configuration management. If an option describes how the tool interacts with running systems, prioritize that over language-specific syntax traits.

Related Analysis

Practice All 350-401 Questions

Access 218 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full 350-401 Practice Test →

← Back to 350-401 Study Guide