Search
30 results for “devops”
Search results
Bash Fundamentals
Bash scripting from variables to functions, plus the quoting and exit-status habits that separate a script that looks right from one that fails safely.
Docker Fundamentals
How images, containers, volumes, and networks fit together in Docker's runtime model, and the shift from installing software to running images.
Git Fundamentals
How Git moves changes through the working tree, index, and history, including safe recovery from conflicts, rewrites, and mistaken commits.
GitOps Principles
Why treating Git as the single source of truth for cluster state changes how deployments, rollbacks, and audits actually work.
Kubernetes Fundamentals
Learn Kubernetes through Pods, Deployments, Services, probes, resources, rollouts, and an official-docs-based troubleshooting workflow.
Linux Fundamentals
The command-line building blocks (navigation, permissions, processes, networking, services) every other Linux topic on this site assumes.
Observability Fundamentals
How logs, metrics, and traces answer different questions, why monitoring is not debuggability, and the cardinality trap that breaks metrics systems.
Terraform Basics
How Terraform's state model, providers, and plan/apply workflow make infrastructure reviewable like code, plus the state pitfalls that trip up teams.
What is the difference between `[ ]` and `[[ ]]` in Bash conditionals?
`[ ]` is the POSIX test command, an actual command whose arguments undergo the shell's normal word-splitting and globbing before it ever sees them, which is why an unquoted variable inside it can break in surprising ways. `[[ ]]` is a Bash keyword with special parsing: it does not word-split or glob its arguments, supports pattern matching (`==`, `=~`) and logical operators (`&&`, `||`) directly inside the brackets, and is generally the safer, more predictable choice in Bash-specific scripts, at the cost of not being portable to a strict POSIX `/bin/sh`.
Why does `set -euo pipefail` matter at the top of a script?
By default, Bash keeps executing after a command fails, treats referencing an unset variable as an empty string instead of an error, and reports a pipeline's exit status as only its last command's; all three hide real failures. `-e` exits on a non-zero status from most simple commands, but only in contexts where errexit actually applies; it does not trigger inside `if`/`while`/`until` conditions, for any but the last command in a pipeline (unless combined with `pipefail`), or for a non-final command in a `&&`/`||` list, whose status is checked by the operator itself rather than causing an exit. The final command in that list is not exempt, though: if it fails and the list isn't itself acting as an `if`/`while`/`until` condition or the left side of another `&&`/`||`, errexit still triggers. `-u` turns an unset-variable reference into an error, and `-o pipefail` makes a pipeline fail if any stage fails, not just the last one. Together they turn a script that silently continues past errors into one that fails loudly in the cases where errexit applies, which is almost always what you want for anything beyond a one-off interactive command, but it is not a blanket guarantee that catches every failure everywhere.
Why should variables almost always be quoted, e.g. `"$name"` instead of `$name`?
An unquoted variable expansion undergoes word-splitting (on whitespace) and globbing (on `*`, `?`, etc.) before the command sees it, so a value containing a space or a shell metacharacter silently becomes multiple arguments or an unintended file-glob expansion instead of one literal string. Quoting (`"$name"`) suppresses both, so the variable's value is always passed through as exactly one argument, which is why nearly every Bash style guide treats an unquoted variable expansion as a latent bug rather than a style preference.
What is the difference between a Docker image and a Docker container?
An image is a read-only, layered filesystem snapshot plus metadata (entrypoint, exposed ports, environment); it never changes once built and can be shared through a registry. A container is a running (or stopped) instance of an image: Docker adds a thin writable layer on top of the image's read-only layers and starts a process inside an isolated namespace. You can start many independent containers from the same image, each with its own writable layer and state, the same way many processes can run from the same binary on a normal OS.
Why does data written inside a container disappear when the container is removed?
Anything a container writes lands in its own writable layer, which is deleted along with the container by `docker rm`. That is deliberate; it is what makes containers disposable and reproducible, a fresh container from the same image always starts from the same known state. Anything that actually needs to survive a container's lifecycle (a database's data files, uploaded assets) has to live outside that writable layer, in a named volume or a bind mount, which Docker mounts into the container at a chosen path but manages independently of the container itself.
Why is publishing a port with `-p 8080:80` different from the container just "having" port 80?
A container's ports exist only on its own private network namespace by default; nothing on the host or outside can reach them until Docker explicitly forwards a host port to it. `-p 8080:80` tells Docker's network layer to forward the host's port 8080 to port 80 inside the container's namespace, host port first, container port second. Leaving a port `EXPOSE`d in a Dockerfile only records metadata/documentation, it has no effect on connectivity at all: another container on the same Docker network can already reach any port the first container is listening on, EXPOSE or not. Publishing to the host is the one thing that always requires an explicit `-p`.
What is the difference between the working directory, the staging area, and a commit in Git?
The working directory is the actual files on disk, whatever state you've left them in. The staging area (the "index") is a snapshot of exactly what will go into the next commit; `git add` copies changes from the working directory into it, one file or hunk at a time, which is why you can commit only part of what you've changed. A commit is a permanent, immutable snapshot of the staging area at the moment you ran `git commit`, plus a pointer to its parent commit, which is what forms the project's history graph. Understanding that staging is a separate, explicit step - not just "what's changed" - explains why `git status` shows both staged and unstaged changes for the same file.
What is the practical difference between `git merge` and `git rebase`?
Both bring one branch's commits into another, but they produce different history shapes. `git merge` creates a new merge commit with two parents, preserving exactly how the branches diverged and came back together; nothing is rewritten, which is why merge is safe on shared/public branches. `git rebase` replays your branch's commits one by one on top of the target branch's tip, producing a linear history with no merge commit, but every replayed commit gets a new hash. That rewriting is why rebase should be avoided on branches other people have already pulled; their history and yours will diverge as soon as they fetch the rewritten commits.
What is the difference between `git reset` and `git revert`, and when should you use each?
git reset moves the current branch pointer (and optionally the staging area and working directory) to a different commit, effectively rewriting history as if the reset-past commits never happened on this branch - fine for commits that only exist locally and haven't been pushed. git revert creates a brand new commit that applies the inverse of a previous commit's changes, leaving history intact and additive. Because it doesn't rewrite anything, revert is the safe choice for undoing a commit that's already been pushed and pulled by others; reset --hard on shared history causes exactly the same divergence problem as a rebase on a shared branch.
What makes a workflow "GitOps" rather than just "we deploy from CI"?
The defining property is a pull-based reconciliation loop, not just that Git triggers a deploy. A GitOps agent (Argo CD, Flux) runs inside the cluster and continuously compares the live state against what's declared in a Git repository, pulling and applying any drift, with or without a new commit. A CI pipeline that runs `kubectl apply` on push is push-based: it changes things once, on trigger, and has no ongoing awareness of whether the cluster later drifts from that state. GitOps closes that loop continuously and treats Git, not the cluster, as the source of truth.
How does GitOps make rollbacks different from a traditional deployment rollback?
In a traditional deploy, rolling back means re-running a deployment process with an older artifact reference, a distinct operation from a normal deploy. In GitOps, a rollback is just a Git revert: since the desired cluster state is fully described by the repository at any commit, reverting to a previous commit and letting the reconciliation loop pick it up produces the previous cluster state through the exact same mechanism as any other change. There is no separate "rollback pipeline" to maintain or that can itself have bugs.
Why does GitOps improve auditability compared to engineers running kubectl or terraform apply directly?
Every change to cluster state has to go through a Git commit, which means it inherits Git's existing history, authorship, and (if branch protection is configured) pull-request review, automatically. Direct `kubectl apply` access leaves no equivalent trail: two changes with the same effect are indistinguishable, there's no required review step, and reconstructing "who changed what and why" after an incident means digging through cluster event logs instead of reading a linear, reviewed commit history.
What is the difference between a Pod, a Deployment, and a Service?
A Pod is the smallest deployable unit, one or more containers that share network and storage, scheduled together onto a node. Pods are ephemeral and disposable; Kubernetes recreates them freely and their IPs change every time. A Deployment manages a set of identical Pods (a ReplicaSet under the hood), handling rolling updates, rollbacks, and keeping the desired replica count running even as individual Pods die. A Service gives that changing set of Pods a stable network identity, a fixed virtual IP and DNS name, so other things in the cluster don't need to track individual Pod IPs, which change constantly.
What does the Kubernetes control loop actually do?
Every Kubernetes controller (Deployment, ReplicaSet, etc.) runs a reconciliation loop: it continuously compares the desired state (what you declared in a manifest, stored in etcd) against the observed actual state of the cluster, and takes action to close any gap. If you declared 3 replicas and only 2 Pods are running, the ReplicaSet controller creates one more. This is the same declarative, converge-toward-desired-state model as Terraform, but running continuously and automatically rather than on-demand.
Why can't you rely on a Pod's IP address for service discovery?
Pods are ephemeral by design, Kubernetes kills and recreates them constantly (failed health checks, node drains, rolling deployments, autoscaling), and every new Pod gets a brand-new IP address. Hardcoding or caching a Pod IP breaks the moment that Pod is replaced. A Service solves this by providing a stable virtual IP and DNS name that always routes to whichever Pods currently match its label selector, regardless of how many times the underlying Pods have been replaced.
What is the difference between readiness, liveness, and startup probes?
Readiness decides whether a Pod should receive Service traffic; a failed readiness probe removes the Pod from eligible backends without restarting it. Liveness decides whether a stuck container should be restarted. A startup probe protects slow-starting containers by delaying readiness and liveness checks until startup succeeds. Reusing one strict check for all three can create restart loops or route traffic too early.
How would you troubleshoot a Service that exists but returns no response?
Work from the application outward: confirm the selected Pods are Ready and serving on the expected container port, compare the Service selector with Pod labels, inspect EndpointSlices to verify Kubernetes discovered backends, confirm port and targetPort, then test Service DNS and IP from inside the cluster. An empty EndpointSlice usually points to a selector/readiness mismatch; healthy endpoints with failed DNS or routing move the investigation to cluster networking.
What is the difference between killing a process with SIGTERM and SIGKILL?
`kill <pid>` sends SIGTERM by default, a request asking the process to shut down, which well-behaved programs catch to close files, finish in-flight work, and exit cleanly. `kill -9 <pid>` sends SIGKILL, which the kernel delivers directly and a process cannot catch, ignore, or clean up after; it is terminated immediately, mid-instruction if necessary. SIGKILL is a last resort for a genuinely hung process; reaching for it by default risks corrupted files or orphaned resources that a graceful SIGTERM shutdown would have avoided.
Why does `ping` succeeding not guarantee an application on that host is reachable?
ping tests only ICMP echo reachability at the network layer; it confirms a host responds to the network, nothing about any specific service running on it. An application listening on a TCP port can be down, crashed, or blocked by a firewall rule that specifically targets that port while still allowing ICMP through, or conversely ICMP itself can be blocked while the actual service is reachable. Confirming an application is actually up requires testing the application layer directly, e.g. `curl` against its port or `ss -tulpn` to confirm something is listening at all.
What does `systemctl enable` actually do, and how is it different from `systemctl start`?
`systemctl start <service>` runs the service right now, in the current boot session only; it will not come back after a reboot. `systemctl enable <service>` creates the symlinks systemd uses to decide what to launch automatically during the boot sequence, so the service starts on every future boot, but does not start it immediately. The two are independent and commonly used together (`systemctl enable --now <service>`) precisely because neither one implies the other.
What is the difference between monitoring and observability?
Monitoring means watching a predefined set of signals for known failure modes, dashboards and alerts built around questions you already knew to ask ("is CPU above 80%?"). Observability is a property of a system: how well you can answer new, previously-unasked questions about its internal state using only its external outputs (logs, metrics, traces), without shipping new code. Monitoring tells you something is wrong; observability is what lets you figure out why, including for failure modes nobody anticipated when the dashboards were built.
What distinct question does each of logs, metrics, and traces answer?
Metrics answer "what is happening, in aggregate, over time", cheap to store, good for dashboards and alerting thresholds, but they lose individual event detail. Logs answer "what exactly happened in this specific event", full detail but expensive to store and search at scale. Traces answer "where did time go across this one request as it moved through multiple services"; they reconstruct causality and latency across service boundaries that neither logs nor metrics show on their own. A mature observability setup uses all three together, correlated by shared identifiers like a request or trace ID.