Alerts are a perennial topic, and a CoPE will need to engage with them. The bounds of this problem space are formed by two types of alerts:  Reactive alerts (in Honeycomb, we call these Triggers): They are alerts that fire after some event, like crossing a pre-determined boundary.  Proactive alerts (Burn Alerts based on Honeycomb’s SLO feature): These give notice before crossing a threshold; in the case of SLOs, that means before failing to meet the stated objective.

The previous post laid out the basic idea of instrumentation and how OpenTelemetry’s auto-instrumentation can get teams started. However, you can’t rely only on auto-instrumentation. This post will discuss the limitations in more detail and how a CoPE can help teams overcome them.

The Collector is the focal point for telemetry inside your cluster. Instead of your containerized applications sending directly to your OpenTelemetry-capable backend (the place that allows you to ask questions of your telemetry), we send that data to an internal location first, then forward the data on.

“How is my app performing?” is one of the most common, yet hardest questions to answer. There are myriad ways to measure this, like error rate, average response time, and so on. Enter the Application Performance Index (aka Apdex), a single metric that attempts to answer, “Are my application’s users happy?”

It’s one of my strongly held beliefs that errors are constructed, not discovered. However we frame an incident’s causes, contributing factors, and context ends up influencing the shape of the corrective items (if any) that get created. I’ll cover these ideas by using our June 3rd incident where a database migration caused a large outage by locking up a shared database and making it run out of connections.

The CoPE is made to affect, meaning change, how things work. The disruption it produces is a feature, not a bug. That disruption pushes things away from a locally optimal, comfortable state that generates diminishing returns. It sets things on a course of exploration to find new terrains which may benefit it more—and for longer.

In my last blog post, I explained why we decided to destroy one third of our infrastructure in production just to see what would happen. This is part two, where I go over the big day. How did our chaos engineering experiment go? Find out below!

Software changes so rapidly that developing on the cutting edge of it cannot fall to a single person. When it comes to asynchronously disseminating information about projects, code comments, PR conversations, Slack, RFCs, and other investigatory documents do a wonderful job, but no amount of async communication replaces the magic of two brains bouncing ideas off of each other.

We recently took a daring step to test and improve the reliability of the Honeycomb service: we abruptly destroyed one third of the infrastructure in our production environment using AWS’s Fault Injection Service. You might be wondering why the heck we did something so drastic. In this post, we’ll go over why we did it and how we made sure that it wouldn’t impact our service.

Transitioning from a monolithic system to a cloud-native microservices environment, Ritchie Bros. sought to modernize their observability infrastructure to support the transition and fuel future growth.

Getting the right people working in the CoPE is crucial to success because these change agents must limber up the organization and promote the flexibility necessary to perform resilience.

Two years ago, we shared our experiences with adopting AWS Graviton3 and our enthusiasm for the future of AWS Graviton and Arm. Once again, we're privileged to share our experiences as a launch customer of the Amazon EC2 R8g instances powered by AWS Graviton4, the newest generation of AWS Graviton processors.