Idempotent Versus Non-Idempotent Storage Provisioning: A Controlled Comparison of Deployment Latency, Configuration Errors, and Recovery Reliability
Abstract
Idempotent provisioning is widely recommended in infrastructure automation, yet its operational advantage over conventional non-idempotent scripts is rarely quantified under repeated execution and partial-failure conditions. We compared both approaches across 320 storage-provisioning runs spanning block, file, and object-storage configurations, including clean deployments, interrupted runs, stale-resource states, and retry events. Median completion time, configuration divergence, manual intervention, and post-failure recovery success were recorded from centralised logs. Idempotent workflows completed routine deployments in a similar time to conventional scripts but were markedly more reliable when commands were repeated or resumed. Configuration mismatches occurred in 3.8% of idempotent runs versus 14.7% of non-idempotent runs, while median recovery time after an interrupted deployment fell from 18.6 to 11.2 minutes. Successful restoration without manual correction was achieved in 96.2% and 84.1% of runs, respectively. The largest benefit was observed when pre-existing resources differed from their expected state. These findings indicate that idempotency contributes more strongly to repeatability and recovery reliability than to first-run speed, supporting its use as a core design property for enterprise storage automation.
References
1. Nazir M. Automating enterprise storage provisioning with PowerShell and Python: effects on deployment time and configuration errors. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Integrated Sciences. 2021;1(1). Available from: https://jmris.com/index.php/jmris/article/view/2021P1V6
2. Rahman A, Mahdavi-Hezaveh R, Williams L. A systematic mapping study of infrastructure as code research. Inf Softw Technol. 2019;108:65-77. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.12.004.
3. Sharma T, Fragkoulis M, Spinellis D. Does your configuration code smell?. In: Proceedings of the 13th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 2016. p. 189-200. doi:10.1145/2901739.2901761.
4. Rahman A, Williams L. Source code properties of defective infrastructure as code scripts. Inf Softw Technol. 2019;112:148-163. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2019.04.013.
5. Hanappi O, Hummer W, Dustdar S. Asserting reliable convergence for configuration management scripts. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications. 2016. p. 328-343. doi:10.1145/2983990.2984000.
6. Rahman A, Elder S, Shezan FH, Frost V, Stallings J, Williams L. Bugs in infrastructure as code. arXiv [Preprint]. 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1809.07937.
7. Rahman A, Farhana E, Williams L. The 'as code' activities: development anti-patterns for infrastructure as code. arXiv [Preprint]. 2020. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2006.00177.
8. Mytkowicz T, Diwan A, Hauswirth M, Sweeney PF. Producing wrong data without doing anything obviously wrong. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. 2009. p. 265-276. doi:10.1145/1508244.1508275.
9. Kalibera T, Jones R. Rigorous benchmarking in reasonable time. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Memory Management. 2013. p. 63-74. doi:10.1145/2464157.2464160.
10. Dean J, Barroso LA. The tail at scale. Commun ACM. 2013;56(2):74-80. doi:10.1145/2408776.2408794.
11. Rose S, Borchert O, Mitchell S, Connelly S. Zero trust architecture. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2020;NIST SP 800-207. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-207.
12. Swanson M, Bowen P, Phillips AW, Gallup D, Lynes D. Contingency planning guide for federal information systems. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2010;NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-34r1.
13. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.
14. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
15. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
16. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
17. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7(1):1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552.
18. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.
