DevOpsDreams

Listen to this article AI-narrated article - 17 min 00 sec. Prose is preserved; code and diagram cues refer to the examples below. Your browser does not support audio playback. Open the MP3 . Read the narration transcript - Open audio Monorepo vs Multirepo for GitOps Manifests: A Practical Guide for Flux and Argo CD GitOps repository structure is not a style choice anymore. The right answer depends on how you split ownership, reconcile paths, and scale teams, controllers, and environments. TL;DR Monorepo versus multirepo is no longer a simple Git preference debate. GitOps tools care about ownership boundaries, reconciliation scope, and how quickly changes should move through the system. Flux can structure monorepos, repo-per-team, and repo-per-app setups, while source decomposition can split a single repository into smaller deployable artifacts with independent lifecycles. Argo CD uses Application paths, automated sync, health assessment, and sync waves to control how Git state beco...

Argo CD Auto-Sync and Health Checks: An Operator's Guide to Safe GitOps Reconciliation Auto-sync and health are not the same thing in Argo CD. This guide shows how reconciliation, pruning, self-healing, retries, health checks, hooks, and sync waves fit together in real clusters. TL;DR Argo CD auto-sync and health checks solve different problems. Auto-sync decides when the controller reconciles Git with the cluster, while health checks decide whether the resulting resources are ready, degraded, or suspended. In practice, you need both: automated sync with prune and self-heal keeps desired state converged, retry refresh helps failed syncs recover on new revisions, and health checks plus custom Lua logic make readiness visible to operators. Sync waves and hooks add ordering when resources depend on each other. The control loop most teams misunderstand Argo CD has two separate jobs that often get blurred together in day-to-day platform talk. The first is reconciliation. Should Arg...

Listen to this article AI-narrated article - 22 min 41 sec. Prose is preserved; code and diagram cues refer to the examples below. Your browser does not support audio playback. Open the MP3 . Read the narration transcript - Open audio AWS VPC Lattice: The Missing Service Layer Between VPC Connectivity and Application Routing AWS VPC Lattice is easiest to misunderstand when you treat it like another load balancer. The real value is a service-layer boundary for discovery, auth, routing, and observability across VPCs, accounts, and even on-prem entry paths. TL;DR AWS VPC Lattice is most useful when your problem is not raw network connectivity but service-to-service access control and routing across many boundaries. It gives you a service network abstraction, per-service listeners and target groups, IAM-backed auth policies, and request-level observability without forcing every team to hand-build PrivateLink, Route 53, and load balancer patterns from scratch. The important caveat is tha...

Gateway API vs Ingress: Why Modern Kubernetes Traffic Management Uses Attachment, Not Annotations Ingress is still valid, but it stopped evolving. Gateway API gives Kubernetes teams a cleaner resource model for shared edge infrastructure, richer routing, and safer multi-namespace ownership. TL;DR Gateway API is the practical successor to Kubernetes Ingress for teams that need more than host and path routing. Instead of collapsing infrastructure, TLS, and application routing into one resource plus controller-specific annotations, it separates concerns across GatewayClass, Gateway, and HTTPRoute. That gives platform teams explicit entry points, application teams structured routing rules, and both sides a safer attachment model for shared gateways. The result is better portability, clearer ownership, richer HTTP routing, and a migration path that does not require an all-at-once cutover. Gateway API separates infrastructure ownership from routing ownership, replacing annotation-heavy in...