CloudWatch metrics can be a very useful source of information for a number of AWS services that don’t produce telemetry as well as instrumented code. There are also a number of useful metrics for non-web-request based functions, like metrics on concurrent database requests. We use them at Honeycomb to get statistics on load balancers and RDS instances. The Amazon Data Firehose is able to export directly to Honeycomb as well, which makes getting the data into Honeycomb straightforward.

How many of you started with technologies you still use exactly the same way today? Even if you’re a master Lisp/Clojure developer, you’ve still evolved, right? I should really get my head around those parentheses some day.

Last week marked the inaugural HumanX conference, a convening of leaders, technologists, policy makers, and media, all brought together to discuss the state of AI and its potential impact on the future of software, business, and society.

Observability and monitoring are not about gathering different data—they differ in their purpose, but share the same data.

The common definition of a computer is a programmable machine that stores, retrieves, and processes data. I would argue that ChatGPT already fits this definition, as you can control how it responds with prompts (programs), it can store data you pass it (memory), it can search that data to generate a response (RAG), and it can process inputs to produce a response (inference).

f you've been using Honeycomb for a bit, you know that Calculated Fields (otherwise known as derived columns) are a powerful way to transform your events to a format that's easier to query and understand. However, they use a lisp-esque language that can be difficult to read and a pain to write.

As software teams race to integrate AI into their development workflows, we need to ask ourselves: are AI-powered tools actually making software better?

I first started using AI coding assistants in early 2021, with an invite code from a friend who worked on the original GitHub Copilot team. Back then, the workflow was just single-line tab completion, but you could also guide code generation with comments and it'd try its best to implement what you want.

AI is everywhere, and its impressive claims are leading to rapid adoption. At this stage, I’d qualify it as charismatic technology—something that under-delivers on what it promises, but promises so much that the industry still leverages it because we believe it will eventually deliver on these claims.

OpenTelemetry (often abbreviated as OTel) is the golden standard observability framework, allowing users to collect, process, and export telemetry data from their systems. OpenTelemetry’s framework is organized into distinct signals, each offering an aspect of observability. Among these signals, OpenTelemetry metrics are crucial in helping engineers understand their systems. In this blog, we’ll explore OpenTelemetry metrics, how they work, and how to use them effectively to ensure your systems and applications run smoothly. 

OpenTelemetry is a big, big project. It’s so big, in fact, that it can be hard to know what part you’re talking about when you’re talking about it! One particular critique I’ve seen going around recently, though, is about how OpenTelemetry is just ‘three pillars’ all over again. Reader, this could not be further from the truth, and I want to spend some time on why.

One of the main pieces of advice about Service Level Objectives (SLOs) is that they should focus on the user experience. Invariably, this leads to people further down the stack asking, “But how do I make my work fit the users?”—to which the answer is to redefine what we mean by “user.” In the end, a user is anyone who uses whatever it is you’re measuring.