Search
9 results for “homelab”
Search results
Automating Active Directory User and Group Management with PowerShell
Step-by-step lab: creating users, OUs, security groups, and group memberships using PowerShell
Setting Up Clean Azure VNets, Subnets & Tagging
A Practical Lab Guide from Beginner to Pro.
DHCP on Hyper-V: Scope Creation to Failover Configuration
Step-by-step deployment of a highly available DHCP service in a Hyper-V virtual environment
Group Policy: Desktop Backgrounds, Power Plans, Logon Notices
Standardize domain-joined desktops with Group Policy: enforce wallpaper, power settings, and a legal logon notice, with verification steps.
Scalable Hyper-V Storage with iSCSI, VHDs, and Storage Pools
Virtual Disks, Storage Pools, and iSCSI - The Hidden Challenges of Hyper-V Storage (And How I Solved Them)
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 is storing Terraform state locally a problem for a team, and what is the standard fix?
Local state is a single file on one person's machine, so another engineer can apply against stale or missing state and create conflicting changes. The standard fix is a remote backend that stores state centrally and supports locking. For the S3 backend, current Terraform supports native lock files with `use_lockfile = true`; DynamoDB-based locking is deprecated. The backend should also encrypt state and keep recoverable versions because state can contain sensitive values.
Golden Images with Azure Compute Gallery: Hands-On Lab
A step-by-step Azure lab for creating, versioning, and deploying standardized VM images at scale.
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.