标签：#devops

IBM and HashiCorp have announced new LDAP secrets management capabilities in IBM Vault Enterprise 2.0, introducing a redesigned architecture to manage LDAP credentials, support password rotation, and automate the identity lifecycle. By Craig Risi

Cloud teams waste between 40% and 60% of their infrastructure budget on a false choice: committing to reserved capacity they won't fully use or chasing spot instance savings they can't. Introduction: The Cloud Cost Optimization Dilemma Cloud teams waste between 40% and 60% of their infrastructure budget on a false choice: committing to reserved capacity they won't fully use or chasing spot instance savings they can't operationalize. The decision between commitment discounts and spot instances is not a preference. It is a calculation with three variables: workload predictability, failure tolerance, and the operational cost of managing interruptions. Commitment discounts lock you into capacity for one or three years. You pay upfront or monthly for compute resources whether you use them or not. The mechanism is simple: cloud providers offer 30% to 72% discounts because they can forecast their own capacity planning when customers commit. You save money when your actual usage matches your commitment. You lose money when usage drops below the committed level because you still pay for idle capacity. Spot instances offer 70% to 90% discounts by selling unused cloud capacity at auction prices. The provider can reclaim these instances with 30 seconds to 2 minutes of notice. You save money when your workload can tolerate interruptions and you build automation to handle instance termination. You lose money when interruptions cause failed jobs that must restart from scratch, consuming more compute time than the discount saved. Most engineering teams pick one strategy and apply it everywhere. This creates two failure modes. Teams that over-commit pay for capacity during low-traffic periods. Teams that over-rely on spot instances spend engineering time rebuilding checkpoint systems and retry logic that costs more than the discount delivers. The correct approach is workload-specific. Measure your actual usage patterns for 30 days. Calculate the cost of interruption handling. Then a

Introduction Modern cloud-native systems generate an enormous amount of telemetry data every second. Applications, containers, Kubernetes clusters, APIs, databases, and infrastructure components continuously emit metrics, logs, and traces to help engineering teams understand system behavior and troubleshoot issues. While observability has become essential for operating distributed systems reliably, it has also introduced a new challenge: managing the scale, cost, and quality of telemetry. OpenTelemetry (OTel) has emerged as the industry standard for collecting and processing observability data. It provides a vendor-neutral framework for instrumenting applications and exporting telemetry to different observability backends. However, simply adopting OpenTelemetry is not enough. Without proper optimization strategies, organizations often face excessive telemetry ingestion costs, noisy dashboards, high-cardinality metrics, trace overload, and inefficient debugging workflows. This article explores practical approaches for optimizing observability using OpenTelemetry. It focuses on metrics, logs, and traces individually while also discussing broader optimization strategies across the telemetry pipeline. Understanding the OpenTelemetry observability pipeline OpenTelemetry provides a unified framework for generating, collecting, processing, and exporting telemetry data. At its core, the OTel ecosystem consists of SDKs, instrumentation libraries, collectors, processors, and exporters. Applications generate telemetry using OpenTelemetry SDKs or auto-instrumentation agents. This telemetry is then sent to the OpenTelemetry Collector, which acts as a centralized telemetry processing layer. The collector can receive telemetry from multiple sources, enrich it with metadata, apply filtering or sampling, and export it to one or more observability backends. The observability pipeline typically follows this flow: Application → OTel SDK → OTel Collector → Observability Backend The Open

In the hyper-competitive landscape of modern B2B outbound sales, speed-to-lead and outreach capacity are the ultimate drivers of pipeline volume . Yet, traditional Sales Development Representative (SDR) teams face a exhausting bottleneck: reaches and qualifications are limited by human bandwidth . A typical outbound SDR spends up to 80% of their day dialing numbers, navigating IVR phone trees, hitting voicemail, and dealing with incorrect contact records. When an inbound lead submits a form requesting a product demo, the average company takes 42 minutes to respond. By that time, prospect engagement has cooled by over 400%. To shatter this operational limit, modern revenue operations (RevOps) teams are transitioning from rigid auto-dialers and static voice bots to autonomous voice AI sales agents . By pairing the hyper-realistic conversational engine of ElevenLabs with the visual orchestration power of n8n , you can deploy a scalable, context-aware calling agent that handles inbound qualification and outbound follow-up calls in real-time. This technical blueprint provides an end-to-end guide to designing, securing, and deploying a production-grade Voice AI Sales Agent using ElevenLabs Conversational AI and n8n . We will cover how to manage conversation state, execute live database tool calls, secure webhook communication, route calls dynamically, and configure infrastructure to achieve sub-second response latency . The Architecture of an Enterprise Voice Agent Building a conversational voice agent requires a multi-layered system that operates in near real-time. When a human speaks over a telephony network, their voice must be digitized, transcribed, processed by a large language model (LLM), synthesized back into audio, and sent back down the line—all within a fraction of a second. To ensure stability, scalability, and absolute separation of concerns, our architecture decouples the telephony and voice generation layer from the logic and database integration layer . [

Microsoft used their Build 2026 event to announce new functionality for Microsoft Foundry. Citing Foundry as "the place where AI agents move from experiments to production systems," in a blog post, Nick Brady writes that the release brings “runtime, tools, memory, grounding, models, observability, and governance” that developers need for production agents, rather than just new model endpoints. By Matt Saunders

Something I keep noticing across teams and orgs that are actually getting value from AI versus the ones that aren't. The difference rarely comes down to the model or the algorithm. Most organizations are already drowning in data. Logs, metrics, alerts, reports, dashboards, tickets. The information exists. The bottleneck is what happens after the data shows up. How long does it take to interpret what the signal means? Who decides what to prioritize when three things need attention at once? How fast can the right people coordinate a response once a decision is made? That's where AI actually earns its keep. Not by replacing the human in the loop but by compressing the time between something happening and someone doing something useful about it. Signal to understanding to action. That's the chain that matters. Think about it in terms you deal with every day. A vulnerability gets disclosed. The CVE exists, the advisory is public, your scanner picked it up. None of that is the bottleneck. The bottleneck is figuring out which of your services are affected, who owns them, how bad the exposure actually is in your specific context, and getting a patch scheduled before someone exploits it. AI that helps you answer those questions in minutes instead of days is genuinely valuable. AI that and adds another dashboard to look at isn't. This applies across the board. Incident response, infrastructure management, risk assessment, customer systems, operational workflows. The teams getting real value aren't the ones with the fanciest models. They're the ones who figured out where their decision bottlenecks actually are and pointed AI at those specific gaps. The strategic advantage is rarely in the algorithm. It's in organizational responsiveness. How fast can you go from "something happened" to "we're handling it". The AI is just the thing that compresses that timeline. Where's the biggest decision bottleneck in your current workflow?

Terraform can provision an AWS EC2 instance and set up a Python virtual environment in a single, reproducible run — the whole workflow is declarative and version‑controlled. 📑 Table of Contents 💻 Terraform — How to Provision an EC2 Instance 🔧 AWS Provider — Configuring Credentials 🐍 Python Environment — Setting up a Virtualenv on the Instance 📦 Installing Python and venv 📦 Activating and Using the Environment 📦 User Data — Automating Installation with Terraform 🟩 Final Thoughts ❓ Frequently Asked Questions How do I store the Terraform state securely? Can I use a different Linux distribution for the EC2 instance? Is it possible to attach an Elastic IP to the instance? 📚 References & Further Reading 💻 Terraform — How to Provision an EC2 Instance A Terraform configuration file describes the desired state of AWS resources; applying it makes the real cloud match that state. First, install Terraform (version 1.5.0 or newer). The binary is a single executable, so the operating system loads it directly into memory and the process performs HTTP requests to AWS endpoints. $ terraform version Terraform v1.5.0 on linux_amd64 + provider registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/aws v5.12.0 Next, create a main.tf that declares an aws_instance resource. The provider block authenticates with AWS using either environment variables or a shared credentials file. # main.tf terraform { required_version = ">= 1.5.0" required_providers { aws = { source = "hashicorp/aws" version = "~> 5.12" } } } provider "aws" { region = "us-east-1" } resource "aws_instance" "app_server" { ami = "ami-0c02fb55956c7d316" # Amazon Linux 2 instance_type = "t3.micro" # User data will be defined later user_data = data.template_file.init.rendered tags = { Name = "terraform-ec2-python" } } Running terraform init contacts the provider registry, downloads the provider plugin, and stores it under .terraform . The generated .terraform.lock.hcl file records exact plugin checksums, guaranteeing that subsequent runs use the same

A pattern keeps repeating itself in AI projects. The model works. The demo works. The proof of...

We wired our LLM eval suite into Datadog over about four months. Most of the panels we built got deleted. These are the five that stayed, and the metrics that feed them. TL;DR: We run an LLM-as-judge eval suite on every PR that touches a prompt, and we ship the results to Datadog as custom metrics. The dashboard started with fourteen panels. We kept five. The one that catches the most real regressions is per-criterion pass-rate split out by judge criterion, not the single rolled-up pass-rate number, because an aggregate of 91 percent hid the fact that one criterion had dropped from 0.95 to 0.62. Below are the metrics we emit, the Python that submits them, the monitor config we alert on, and the panels we tried and dropped. Some context on the setup so the rest makes sense. We are a Series-C dev-tool startup. We have a handful of prompts in production that do real work (classification, extraction, a summarization step in an agent loop). Each one has an eval set of tagged examples, somewhere between 80 and 400 per prompt. The judge is a separate model call that scores each output against a rubric. We run the suite in GitHub Actions. The eval job emits metrics to Datadog at the end of every run. Backend service health was already in Datadog, so putting eval data next to it meant one place to look during an incident instead of two. 1. Emit per-criterion pass-rate, not just the rolled-up number This is the one that earns its place. Our judge scores each output against multiple criteria. For the extraction prompt it is four: correct fields, no hallucinated fields, format valid, no refusal. Early on we only emitted one number, prompt_eval.pass_rate, the fraction of examples that passed every criterion. That number is fine for a smoke test and useless for debugging. The problem showed up on a prompt change that looked clean. Overall pass-rate went from 0.93 to 0.91. Two points. Nobody would block a PR on two points. But underneath, the "no hallucinated fields" criterion had

If you are just getting started with Azure CLI and Bash scripting, this post is for you. I will walk you through how I automated the creation of Azure resource groups for multiple environments using a single Bash script — something that was taking a cloud admin several manual steps every week. This is Project 2 in my TechRush Cloud Engineering bootcamp series. If you want to see where this journey started, you can read my previous post where I tackled deploying a web app across two Azure regions for the first time . That project involved real blockers — quota limits, CLI version mismatches, and a deep dive into Azure Resource Providers. This one went smoother, and I think that is because the previous project was the hard school. The Problem Imagine a cloud administrator who has to create five resource groups every single week, one for each active project: Project-A-RG Project-B-RG Project-C-RG Project-D-RG Project-E-RG Every week. By hand. Management's response was simple: automate it. But here is where the task gets more interesting. Instead of creating one flat resource group per project, the better approach is to create four resource groups per project — one for each environment: Dev Test UAT Production This matters because each environment needs its own access controls, cost tracking, and lifecycle rules. You do not want your Development environment sharing a resource group with Production. Keeping them separate is a real-world cloud best practice, not just a bootcamp exercise. What You Will Need Before running this script, make sure you have the following set up: Azure CLI installed on your local machine. You can follow the official installation guide . An active Azure account . A free account works fine for this. A terminal that runs Bash — Linux, macOS, or WSL on Windows. Understanding the Design The core idea behind this script is parameterization . Instead of hardcoding project names, the script accepts a project name as input and uses it as a prefix for ev

Amazon Web Services has recently announced the general availability of the next generation of Amazon OpenSearch Serverless, with a redesigned architecture that enables 20 times faster resource provisioning than the previous serverless architecture, true scale-to-zero capability, and up to 60% lower cost than a provisioned cluster for peak loads. By Gianmarco Nalin

In the summer of 2016, Pokémon GO launched to a user base roughly fifty times larger than its capacity planning had anticipated. The engineering team had done load testing. They had throughput thresholds. They had autoscaling configured. Within hours of launch, the service was degraded globally — not because the infrastructure could not scale, but because it scaled too slowly against an arrival rate that exceeded every modelled scenario, and because the metric that was driving scaling decisions (CPU utilisation) lagged behind the actual saturation signal by several minutes. By the time CPU registered critical, the request queue had already grown to the point where p99 latency had crossed into the range where users were abandoning sessions faster than new sessions were being created. The engineering post-mortem identified the same root cause that appears in the post-mortems of most capacity-related incidents: the organisation's operational metrics were measuring how hard the infrastructure was working, not how much work the service could safely accept. CPU percentage is a resource utilisation metric. Memory percentage is a resource utilisation metric. IOPS is a resource utilisation metric. None of them is a service throughput metric. None of them tells you, with precision, at what arrival rate your SLO begins to degrade. Safe Operating Throughput is that metric. It is not a new concept in queueing theory or systems engineering — the idea of a safe operating ceiling predates modern distributed systems. What is new is its treatment as a first-class SRE metric: formally derived from load test data and SLO targets, continuously monitored for drift, and operationally enforced as a constraint in autoscaling configuration, capacity planning decisions, and deployment pipeline gates. Why Existing Capacity Metrics Are Insufficient The canonical capacity management approach in most organisations works like this: observe CPU or memory utilisation, set an autoscaling threshold (t

Per-request attribution starts with five fields on every call: provider, model, input tokens, output tokens, and ownership tags such as team, feature, and customer. A monthly vendor bill cannot explain why one feature, one tenant, or one prompt template suddenly became expensive. Request-level math can. As of June 8, 2026, OpenAI lists GPT-5.4 mini at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $4.50 per 1M output tokens, while Anthropic lists Claude Sonnet 4 at $3 and $15 respectively. Gateway logs are useful, but they rarely solve AI cost tracking per feature unless you enrich them with business context and retry metadata. The practical operating model is simple: calculate cost on every request, attach ownership dimensions, then roll the data up into team, feature, and customer views. If you are searching for "LLM cost attribution per request," you are usually already past the basic billing problem. You can see your OpenAI or Anthropic invoice, but you cannot answer the questions finance and engineering actually care about: which feature drove the spike, which team owns it, which customers are unprofitable, and which prompt or model change caused the jump. That is why per-request attribution matters. It turns AI spend from a monthly surprise into an operational metric you can act on in the same day. Why LLM cost attribution per request matters now According to the FinOps Foundation's 2025 State of FinOps report, 63% of respondents now manage AI spending, up from 31% the year before. That jump is the real signal. AI cost is no longer a side bucket inside cloud spend. It is becoming a first-class FinOps workload. For teams spending $5,000 to $50,000 per month on LLM APIs, averages break down quickly. A support assistant, an internal coding copilot, and a customer-facing generation feature can all hit the same vendor account while having completely different margins, latency targets, and prompt shapes. If you only look at total spend by provider, you lose the unit economics. Per-r

Short answer first: use Supabase if you want Postgres plus auth, realtime, storage, and a dashboard as one managed bundle. Self-host Postgres – or use a managed Postgres – if you mostly need a database and your app already handles its own auth and logic. The choice is not really "Postgres vs Supabase". It's whether you need the extra layers Supabase puts on top of Postgres. Supabase is not a database Supabase runs on PostgreSQL, but it's a stack of services around it: Postgres – the actual database Auth – user signup, login, JWT tokens Realtime – live updates over websockets Storage – an S3-style file store Edge Functions – serverless functions Studio – dashboard + auto-generated REST/GraphQL API So "self-host Postgres or use Supabase" compares a plain database to a full backend. The honest question: do you need those extra layers, or just the database underneath them? A quick test: You use Supabase Auth, Storage, and Realtime → Supabase earns its place. You use one of them → it's replaceable. You use none and treat it as "Postgres with a nice dashboard" → you want plain Postgres. Side-by-side comparison Factor Supabase (managed) Self-hosted Supabase Plain Postgres (managed or self-hosted) Database engine PostgreSQL PostgreSQL PostgreSQL Built-in auth Yes Yes No (bring your own) Realtime / websockets Yes Yes No File storage Yes Yes No Dashboard + auto API Yes Yes No (use any SQL client) Backups Managed (limits by plan) You manage Managed or you manage Cost shape Metered, grows with usage Server cost + your time Database only Self-host effort None High (many containers) Low–medium Lock-in Medium–high Medium Very low The lock-in point decides it for many teams. Your data is standard Postgres in every option ( pg_dump portable). The lock-in is everything else: Auth tokens, Storage paths, Supabase-specific RLS policies, Edge Function code. The more Supabase-specific features you adopt, the harder the exit. When each option wins Pick managed Supabase when: You're startin

Ten weeks ago I did the thing every "grow your open source project" guide tells you to do. I carved a few small, self-contained tasks out of my backlog, labeled them good first issue , wrote crisp descriptions, and waited for contributors to roll in. They didn't roll in. The issues just sat there. This morning, one of them finally got picked up. A first-time contributor opened a clean PR against my MCP server: a smoke-test suite, no new dependencies, green across the whole Node CI matrix. Exactly the contribution the label was advertising for. And then my own repository spent the next twenty minutes trying to stop it from getting merged. Not with anything dramatic. With three quiet, individually-reasonable "best practice" gates that, stacked together, form a gauntlet aimed squarely at the one person you spent ten weeks trying to attract. I want to walk through each gate, because almost everything written about contributors is about attracting them, and almost nothing is about the last hundred feet — the silent friction between a willing PR and a merged commit. The advice is only half the story "Add good first issues and contributors will come" is true in the same way "build it and they will come" is true: technically, eventually, for a small subset, with survivorship bias baked in. My good first issue opened on March 31. The PR that closed it merged on June 8. That's sixty-nine days of a clearly-labeled, beginner-friendly task sitting untouched. I'm not complaining about the wait — that part is normal. I'm pointing out that the advice stops exactly where the interesting problem starts. Because the bottleneck was never finding someone willing. When someone willing finally showed up, the friction was entirely on my side of the fence. Gate 1: the CI that silently refuses to run GitHub Actions does not run workflows on pull requests from first-time contributors until a maintainer approves the run. This is a sane anti-abuse measure — fork PRs can run arbitrary code in yo

Three weeks ago, one of the teams we work with had a checkout outage. The root cause a malformed...

HashiCorp has released Terraform 1.15, introducing dynamic module sources, a formal deprecation mechanism for variables and outputs, a new inline type conversion function, type constraints for output blocks, and native Windows ARM64 support. The release addresses several long-standing requests from the Terraform community. By Matt Saunders

CSV files are one of the most common formats for storing and exchanging data. Whether you’re working with logs, analytics data, application exports, or reports, there will likely come a time when you need to load CSV data into ClickHouse®. The good news is that ClickHouse® makes CSV ingestion straightforward and efficient. In this guide, you’ll learn how to create a table, prepare a CSV file, load CSV data into ClickHouse®, and verify that the data has been imported successfully. Why Use CSV Files with ClickHouse®? CSV (Comma-Separated Values) files are simple, portable, and supported by virtually every data platform. Common use cases include: Importing exported application data Loading historical datasets Migrating data from other databases Testing analytics workloads Sharing data between systems Because ClickHouse® is designed for high-performance analytics, it can efficiently process and query large CSV datasets once they are loaded into a table. Sample CSV File Let’s assume we have a file named employees.csv with the following contents: id,name,department,salary 1,Alice,Engineering,75000 2,Bob,Marketing,60000 3,Charlie,Finance,70000 This simple dataset will help demonstrate how to load CSV data into ClickHouse®. Step 1: Create a Table in ClickHouse® Before importing data, create a table that matches the structure of the CSV file. CREATE TABLE employees ( id UInt32, name String, department String, salary UInt32 ) ENGINE = MergeTree() ORDER BY id; This table contains four columns that correspond directly to the columns in our CSV file. Step 2: Load CSV Data into ClickHouse® There are several ways to import CSV data, but one of the most common methods is using the ClickHouse® client. Run the following command: clickhouse-client --query=" INSERT INTO employees FORMAT CSVWithNames" < employees.csv The CSVWithNames format tells ClickHouse® that the first row contains column headers. After executing the command, ClickHouse® will read the CSV file and insert the records

In Modern Time applications are no longer simple monolithic systems. Today organizations run: Microservices Kubernetes Containers Serverless Functions Multi-Cloud Platforms Distributed Systems As infrastructure becomes more distributed, troubleshooting becomes significantly harder. A single user request may travel through: Frontend ↓ API Gateway ↓ Microservice A ↓ Microservice B ↓ Database When something breaks, the biggest challenge becomes: "What exactly happened?" This is where Observability becomes critical. 🔗 Resources ** Support the Journey on GitHub: If you're following along, consider starring and forking the repo:** https://github.com/17J/30-Days-Cloud-DevSecOps-Journey What is Observability? Observability is the ability to understand the internal state of a system by analyzing the data it produces. In simple words: Can we understand what is happening inside our systems? Observability helps engineers answer: Why is the application slow? Which service is failing? Which request caused the issue? What changed recently? Where is latency occurring? Without observability: Problem Exists ↓ Guessing Begins With observability: Problem Exists ↓ Evidence Available ↓ Faster Resolution Why Observability Matters Modern cloud-native systems generate enormous amounts of data. Example: 100 Microservices ↓ Millions of Requests ↓ Thousands of Containers Traditional monitoring alone is no longer sufficient. Organizations need: Visibility Insights Correlation Root Cause Analysis Observability provides all of them. Monitoring vs Observability Many people confuse monitoring and observability. Monitoring asks: What is wrong? Observability asks: Why is it wrong? Example: Monitoring: CPU Usage = 95% Observability: Which service? Which request? Which dependency? Which deployment caused it? Observability provides context. The Three Pillars of Observability Modern observability is built on three primary pillars. Metrics Logs Traces Or: Monitoring Logging Tracing Together they provide a

Backstage won the developer portal war and most teams running it still failed. Spotify's open-source framework, now a CNCF project, holds about 89% of the IDP market, runs at more than 3,400 organizations, and serves over two million developers outside Spotify. That is a decisive victory by any market-share metric. Then you find the number nobody puts on a keynote slide: the average internal adoption rate of a self-hosted Backstage instance sits around 10%. Most teams stand up a portal, demo it to leadership, and watch it quietly fail to become the thing engineers open every morning. So the slogan making the rounds in platform circles this year, "DIY is dead," is aimed at the exact tool that dominates the category. That sounds like a contradiction. It isn't. It's a math problem about where a small platform team's hours actually go. The 89% that doesn't mean what you think Framework market share and developer adoption are two different scoreboards, and Backstage is winning one while losing the other. Winning the framework war means a lot of organizations chose Backstage as the thing to build on. It says nothing about whether developers inside those organizations use the resulting portal. The honest read of the data is grim: teams "burn out on maintenance before delivering features developers actually want," and 56% of Backstage adopters name upgrades as their single biggest pain point. Not catalog design, not plugin gaps. Upgrades. The treadmill of keeping a fast-moving framework current is the thing that eats the year. I've watched this pattern up close on infra teams that had every reason to succeed. The portal goes live, gets a round of applause, and then the catalog data goes stale because nobody owns the integrations, the scorecards never get wired to real ownership data, and three months later the platform engineers are spending their sprints chasing a plugin that broke on the latest bump. The portal became the project instead of the platform. That is the failu