# GitOps ArgoCD Flux

URL: https://justrunme.com/cases/gitops-argocd-flux/
Author: Andrey Lesnikov
Role: Senior Infrastructure & DevOps Engineer, CONTACT Software GmbH
Topics: AI infrastructure, Kubernetes, GitOps, Terraform, observability, platform engineering

GitOps is not just a deployment tool choice. It is a platform contract for how teams promote, observe, roll back, and audit Kubernetes state.

## Snapshot

- Problem: Teams need a clear delivery model before GitOps becomes another layer of operational confusion.
- Constraints: Multi-environment promotion, drift detection, rollback safety, secret handling, and developer feedback loops.
- Architecture: Comparison of Argo CD and Flux reconciliation patterns, sync ownership, policy boundaries, and platform team responsibilities.
- Result: GitOps decisions become explicit platform contracts instead of tool preference debates.

## Architecture Notes

### Problem

Teams often discuss Argo CD versus Flux as a preference debate. The harder question is ownership: who controls sync, environments, secrets, drift, rollback, and developer feedback?

### Architecture

A GitOps platform defines repository layout, environment overlays, sync waves, health checks, policy boundaries, secret handling, and rollback contracts. Argo CD and Flux can both fit, but the operating model must be explicit.

### Trade-offs

Argo CD offers strong visual operations and app ownership patterns; Flux fits controller-native workflows and composable automation. The right decision depends on team model, governance, and platform ownership.

### Result

GitOps becomes a repeatable delivery interface instead of another operational layer. Drift is visible, promotion is reviewable, and rollback behavior is designed before production pressure.

## Architecture Diagram

Git -> Policy checks -> Argo CD / Flux -> Clusters -> Drift + rollback

## Constraints

- Support multi-environment promotion without turning deployment into manual coordination.
- Make drift, rollback, health, and secret boundaries clear to both platform and application teams.
- Choose tooling based on operating model, not preference debates.

## Key Decisions

- Treat GitOps as a platform contract: repository layout, sync ownership, health gates, and rollback behavior.
- Compare Argo CD and Flux through reconciliation model, team workflow, and visibility needs.
- Separate cloud foundations managed by Terraform from Kubernetes state reconciled by GitOps.

## Failure Modes

- GitOps becomes a second control plane with unclear ownership and surprise sync behavior.
- Secrets, overlays, or app-of-apps patterns drift into unreviewable complexity.
- Rollback exists in theory but has not been modeled for real environment promotion.

## Result

GitOps decisions become explicit delivery contracts with reviewable promotion, drift visibility, and designed rollback paths.

## Related Technologies

- Argo CD
- Flux
- Kubernetes
- EKS
- Terraform
- Helm
- Kustomize
- Policy as code


## FAQ

### Should a platform choose Argo CD or Flux?

Choose based on operating model: visibility, ownership, sync control, multi-cluster patterns, and team workflow matter more than tool popularity.

### What makes GitOps safe at scale?

Clear repository structure, environment overlays, policy checks, secret boundaries, progressive sync, health gates, and tested rollback contracts.

## Related URLs

- Case index: https://justrunme.com/cases/
- AI infrastructure hub: https://justrunme.com/ai-infrastructure/
- Kubernetes GitOps hub: https://justrunme.com/kubernetes-gitops/
- Profile: https://justrunme.com/