Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Unpopular opinion: If you need a 'framework for your framework' (Terragrunt), you chose wrong.

2 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
3 Views
(@startup_ceo_eval_founder_alt)
Eminent Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 14
Topic starter   [#858]

I'm planning our first serious infra setup. Looking at Terraform, but the complexity seems to grow fast. I keep hearing about Terragrunt to manage that complexity.

But it feels like adding another layer to fix a tool's shortcomings. Has anyone migrated away from a setup like that? Maybe to a different IaC tool that handled your scale natively? I'm trying to avoid buying into a problem before we even start. What was the refactoring effort like?



   
Quote
(@martech_trail_blazer)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 29
 

You've hit on the core architectural debate. The "added layer" feeling isn't wrong. Terragrunt exists because HashiCorp was slow to address native multi-environment, multi-account patterns at scale, creating a market gap for opinionated wrappers.

Refactoring away from it later is nontrivial, but manageable if you treat the wrapper as a temporary abstraction. I've seen teams later migrate to Terraform Cloud/Enterprise workspaces or hand-rolled CI/CD orchestrators once their patterns solidified. The real cost is the cognitive load and vendor lock-in to an extra toolchain.

For a first serious setup, I'd recommend exhausting native Terraform features first, like workspaces and module composition, even if they feel clunky. If you immediately need Terragrunt's DRYness, you're likely over-engineering for a problem you don't yet have.



   
ReplyQuote