Infrastructure as Code & Cloud Automation
GitOps vs Traditional DevOps: Scaling Infrastructure as Code with Pull-Based Architecture
GitOps vs Traditional DevOps: Implementing Infrastructure as Code at Scale
This guide compares push-based Traditional DevOps with pull-based GitOps architectures for Infrastructure as Code (IaC) at scale, focusing on state synchronization mechanisms, drift detection, and implementation patterns.
Core Architectural Models
Traditional DevOps: Push-Based Deployment
Traditional DevOps uses CI/CD pipelines to push infrastructure changes to target environments. The pipeline executes IaC tools (Terraform, Ansible) from a build runner with credentials to access infrastructure APIs.
Key characteristics:
- CI runners maintain active credentials for cloud providers and Kubernetes clusters
- State files stored remotely (S3, Consul, Terraform Cloud)
- Changes executed imperatively through pipeline triggers
- No continuous state monitoring after deployment
Security implications:
- CI/CD systems require elevated privileges across all target environments
- Compromised pipeline credentials grant attacker full infrastructure access
- Secrets management complexity increases with pipeline scaling
GitOps: Pull-Based Deployment
GitOps uses pull-based controllers inside target clusters that continuously reconcile infrastructure state against Git repositories. The cluster becomes the active agent.
Key characteristics:
- In-cluster controllers (ArgoCD, Flux) poll Git repositories for desired state
- Declarative configuration defines infrastructure state
- Continuous reconciliation loops detect and correct drift
- Git serves as the single source of truth
Security implications:
- Controllers use read-only Git access and scoped RBAC within clusters
- No external CI runner requires cluster credentials
- Credentials never leave the cluster boundary
State Management Comparison
Traditional DevOps State Management
Terraform and similar tools maintain state through remote backends:
terraform {
backend "s3" {
bucket = "terraform-state"
key = "prod/infrastructure.tfstate"
region = "us-east-1"
encrypt = true
dynamodb_table = "terraform-locks"
}
}
State files capture the mapping between declared resources and actual infrastructure IDs. Manual modifications to infrastructure cause state drift that requires explicit terraform refresh and plan operations to detect.
GitOps State Management
GitOps stores state directly in the cluster through Kubernetes custom resources:
apiVersion: kustomize.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1
kind: Kustomization
metadata:
name: infrastructure
namespace: flux-system
spec:
interval: 10m
sourceRef:
kind: GitRepository
name: infra-repo
path: ./k8s/production
prune: true
validation: client
The controller continuously compares the cluster's actual state with the Git repository's declared state. Drift detection is automatic and continuous, triggering self-healing without manual intervention.
Drift Detection Mechanisms
Traditional DevOps Drift Detection
Drift detection requires manual execution:
- Run
terraform planto compare state file against live infrastructure - Parse output to identify drifted resources
- Execute
terraform applyto reconcile - Schedule periodic checks via cron jobs or CI pipelines
Limitation: Drift exists undetected between scheduled checks, creating windows of inconsistency.
GitOps Drift Detection
Drift detection is continuous and automatic:
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Application
metadata:
name: production-app
namespace: argocd
spec:
project: default
source:
repoURL: https://github.com/org/infrastructure.git
targetRevision: main
path: k8s/production
destination:
server: https://kubernetes.default.svc
namespace: production
syncPolicy:
automated:
prune: true
selfHeal: true
syncOptions:
- CreateNamespace=true
The reconciliation loop (typically 1-3 minute intervals):
- Fetches desired state from Git
- Queries cluster for actual state
- Computes diff
- Applies corrections automatically when
selfHeal: true
Manual changes to infrastructure are automatically reverted within one reconciliation cycle.
Toolchain Comparison
Traditional DevOps Toolchain
- CI/CD Platforms: Jenkins, GitLab CI, CircleCI, GitHub Actions
- IaC Tools: Terraform, CloudFormation, Ansible, Pulumi
- State Storage: S3, Azure Storage, Terraform Cloud, Consul
- Secrets Management: Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, Kubernetes Secrets
GitOps Toolchain
- Git Controllers: ArgoCD, Flux CD, Jenkins X
- Manifest Generation: Kustomize, Helm, Jsonnet
- Policy Enforcement: OPA Gatekeeper, Kyverno
- Notification: Slack, Discord, email via webhooks
Implementation: ArgoCD Application Resource
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: AppProject
metadata:
name: production
namespace: argocd
spec:
description: Production infrastructure project
sourceRepos:
- https://github.com/org/infrastructure.git
destinations:
- namespace: '*'
server: https://kubernetes.default.svc
clusterResourceWhitelist:
- group: '*'
kind: '*'
orphanedResources:
warn: false
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
kind: Application
metadata:
name: ingress-nginx
namespace: argocd
annotations:
argocd.argoproj.io/sync-wave: "0"
spec:
project: production
source:
repoURL: https://github.com/org/infrastructure.git
targetRevision: main
path: helm/ingress-nginx
helm:
valueFiles:
- values-prod.yaml
destination:
server: https://kubernetes.default.svc
namespace: ingress-nginx
syncPolicy:
automated:
prune: true
selfHeal: true
allowEmpty: false
syncOptions:
- CreateNamespace=true
- PrunePropagationPolicy=foreground
retry:
limit: 5
backoff:
duration: 5s
factor: 2
maxDuration: 3m
This configuration deploys the ingress-nginx Helm chart from Git, automatically syncs changes, and self-heals drift.
Migration Strategy: Push to Pull
Phase 1: Controller Installation
Install the GitOps controller without automated sync enabled:
# Install ArgoCD
kubectl create namespace argocd
kubectl apply -n argocd -f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/argoproj/argo-cd/stable/manifests/install.yaml
# Install Flux
flux install --export > gotk-components.yaml
kubectl apply -f gotk-components.yaml
Phase 2: Repository Synchronization
Configure the controller to observe existing infrastructure:
apiVersion: source.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1
kind: GitRepository
metadata:
name: infra-repo
namespace: flux-system
spec:
interval: 5m
url: https://github.com/org/infrastructure.git
ref:
branch: main
Phase 3: Declarative Migration
Export existing infrastructure to declarative manifests:
# Export existing deployments
kubectl get deployments -n production -o yaml > k8s/production/deployments.yaml
# Export existing services
kubectl get services -n production -o yaml > k8s/production/services.yaml
# Commit to Git
git add k8s/production/
git commit -m "Migrate existing infrastructure to GitOps"
git push origin main
Phase 4: Enable Automated Sync
Gradually enable selfHeal on applications, starting with low-risk workloads:
syncPolicy:
automated:
prune: true
selfHeal: true # Enable after validation
Monitor logs for reconciliation issues:
# ArgoCD logs
kubectl logs -n argocd -l app.kubernetes.io/name=argocd-application-controller -f
# Flux logs
kubectl logs -n flux-system -l app.kubernetes.io/name=helm-controller -f
Phase 5: Decommission Push Pipelines
After successful migration:
- Disable CI/CD infrastructure deployment jobs
- Remove cloud provider credentials from CI runners
- Retire Terraform state backends (after confirming cluster reconciliation)
Getting Started
- Choose a GitOps operator: Install ArgoCD or Flux CD in your Kubernetes cluster
- Create a Git repository: Initialize a repo for infrastructure manifests
- Define desired state: Write Kubernetes manifests or Helm charts for your infrastructure
- Configure the controller: Create Application or Kustomization resources pointing to your Git repo
- Enable automated sync: Set
selfHeal: trueandprune: truein sync policies - Implement validation: Add pre-sync hooks or policy-as-code rules to prevent dangerous changes
- Monitor reconciliation: Set up alerts for sync failures and drift detection
For multi-cluster deployments, deploy the GitOps controller in each cluster and use a centralized Git repository with branch-per-environment or directory-per-environment structure.
Share this Guide:
More Guides
API Gateway Showdown: Kong vs Ambassador vs AWS API Gateway for Microservices
Compare Kong, Ambassador, and AWS API Gateway across architecture, performance, security, and cost to choose the right gateway for your microservices.
12 min readGitHub Actions vs GitLab CI vs Jenkins: The Ultimate CI/CD Platform Comparison for 2026
Compare GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and Jenkins across architecture, scalability, cost, and security to choose the best CI/CD platform for your team in 2026.
7 min readKafka vs RabbitMQ vs EventBridge: Complete Messaging Backbone Comparison
Compare Apache Kafka, RabbitMQ, and AWS EventBridge across throughput, latency, delivery guarantees, and operational complexity to choose the right event-driven architecture for your use case.
4 min readChaos Engineering: A Practical Guide to Failure Injection and System Resilience
Learn how to implement chaos engineering using the scientific method: define steady state, form hypotheses, inject failures, and verify system resilience. This practical guide covers application and infrastructure-level failure injection patterns with code examples.
4 min readScaling PostgreSQL for High-Traffic: Read Replicas, Sharding, and Connection Pooling Strategies
Master PostgreSQL horizontal scaling with read replicas, sharding with Citus, and connection pooling. Learn practical implementation strategies to handle high-traffic workloads beyond single-server limits.
4 min readContinue Reading
API Gateway Showdown: Kong vs Ambassador vs AWS API Gateway for Microservices
Compare Kong, Ambassador, and AWS API Gateway across architecture, performance, security, and cost to choose the right gateway for your microservices.
12 min readGitHub Actions vs GitLab CI vs Jenkins: The Ultimate CI/CD Platform Comparison for 2026
Compare GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and Jenkins across architecture, scalability, cost, and security to choose the best CI/CD platform for your team in 2026.
7 min readKafka vs RabbitMQ vs EventBridge: Complete Messaging Backbone Comparison
Compare Apache Kafka, RabbitMQ, and AWS EventBridge across throughput, latency, delivery guarantees, and operational complexity to choose the right event-driven architecture for your use case.
4 min read