标签：#infrastructureascode

Did you know there's a new major version in town for Puppet Core? You might have heard about it through the grapevine or in the Are You Ready for Puppet 9? webinar that @gpatton and I recently hosted. The wait is over and Puppet Core 9.0.0 is now available alongside Puppet Core 8.21.0. Puppet Core 9 introduces significant runtime and platform changes, moving to Ruby 4.0, OpenSSL 3.5, and other changes, but the essential Puppet under the hood is largely unchanged from Puppet 8. The majority of upgrade effort will center on Ruby 4 compatibility and runtime dependency changes rather than Puppet language changes. If you are staying on the Puppet Core 8.x release track, the latest Puppet Core 8.21 delivers the basic support fixes and security improvements you might need without the major dependency changes found in Puppet Core 9. What matters most for the admins Before upgrading to Puppet Core 9: Test custom facts, functions, types, and providers against Ruby 4.0. Validate any Forge modules you use for Ruby 4 compatibility. Review integrations that depend on OpenSSL behavior. Verify any workflows that still rely on SHA-1. Confirm managed nodes are running supported operating systems. Review any custom code that depends on PSON or multi_json . Check deferred function behavior if you have custom types or providers. Perforce will be rolling out updates to Puppetlabs modules on the Forge based on their priority tier and dependencies. The first batch of these should be rolling out soon. Puppet Core 9.0 highlights These are a few highlights I pulled from the release notes. Make sure to reference the full 9.0 release notes to get all the details about what has changed! Ruby updated to 4.0.5: With a new Ruby baseline some deprecated syntax from older Ruby versions will no longer be compatible. This is the primary focus area for upgrades as you will want to validate your custom code and modules. The latest PDK 3.8.0 introduced some Ruby 4 validators to help you update your syntax

The 10-Minute Tax For many years, as a CDK developer, I'd run cdk synth , then cdk deploy , and then cross my fingers — either it deployed cleanly, or it failed somewhere in the middle of a CloudFormation run that had already been going for ten minutes: ❌ MyStack failed: UPDATE_ROLLBACK_COMPLETE Resource handler returned message: "The runtime parameter of nodejs16.x is no longer supported" (HandlerErrorCode: InvalidRequest) Ten minutes. For something CDK could have told you before it ever talked to CloudFormation. These days I let AI agents write a good chunk of my CDK code, which made this even worse — an agent can't iterate when every failed attempt costs it ten minutes. 🤖 AI Agent development loop: Attempt 1: cdk deploy → ⏱️ 10 min → ❌ deprecated runtime Attempt 2: cdk deploy → ⏱️ 10 min → ❌ invalid memory size Attempt 3: cdk deploy → ⏱️ 10 min → ❌ security group rule conflict Attempt 4: cdk deploy → ⏱️ 10 min → ✅ finally works Total time wasted: 30 minutes on things that were knowable at synth time. And if you're deploying something heavy like an Amazon EKS cluster, the penalty stretches to 25-30 minutes per failed attempt. What if the CDK could catch all of those on cdk synth — in seconds? The CDK Lifecycle: Where Validation Fits Before I show off the new validation, it helps to see where it plugs into the lifecycle every cdk deploy goes through: Stage What Happens Executed By 1. Construction Execute main.ts , call new Stack() , build the construct tree in memory CDK App (local) 2. Synth app.synth() traverses the tree, produces CloudFormation template to cdk.out/ CDK App (local) 3. Template Validation 🆕 Post-synth offline validation — default rule set + registered policy plugins CDK App (aws-cdk-lib, local) 4. Create Change Set 🆕 CloudFormation pre-deployment validation — 6 types of online checks against real account state CloudFormation (AWS) 5. Execute Change Set CloudFormation provisions/updates/deletes actual AWS resources CloudFormation (AWS) The gap was a

If your Terraform plans are slow, your blast radius is too wide, or multiple teams are stepping on each other's changes, it's time to split your monolith. See The Problem with Large Terraform States for how to diagnose whether you've reached that point. This guide walks through the process of breaking a monolithic Terraform state into smaller, focused states — and how Snap CD can manage the dependencies between them so you don't have to. The approach 1. Identify natural boundaries Look at your resources and group them by lifecycle and ownership. Common boundaries: Networking — VPCs, subnets, route tables, NAT gateways. Changes rarely, underpins everything. DNS — Zones, records. Usually owned by a platform team. Compute — Kubernetes clusters, VM scale sets, container services. Changes more often, depends on networking. Application infrastructure — Databases, caches, queues, storage accounts. Owned by application teams. Monitoring — Dashboards, alerts, log sinks. Changes frequently, depends on everything but nothing depends on it. A useful test: if two resources would never be changed in the same PR by the same person, they probably belong in different states. 2. Map the dependencies Before you move anything, draw the dependency graph. Which groups produce values that other groups consume? networking dns │ ▲ ▼ │ compute ──────────►─┘ │ ▼ application │ ▼ monitoring The outputs that cross these boundaries are what you'll need to wire up after the split. Typical examples: Networking → Compute: vpc_id , private_subnet_ids Compute → DNS: load_balancer_ip Compute → Application: cluster_endpoint , cluster_ca_certificate Application → Monitoring: database_id , cache_name 3. Use terraform state mv to migrate resources Terraform's state mv command lets you move resources from one state to another without destroying and recreating them. # Initialize the destination state cd modules/networking terraform init # Move resources from the monolith to the new state terraform state mv \

At some point every growing Terraform project hits a wall. Plans that used to finish in seconds now take minutes. Applies feel risky because hundreds of resources share a single blast radius. Colleagues avoid running terraform plan because it hammers cloud APIs hard enough to trigger throttling. The state file itself becomes a liability — large, slow to lock, and one bad write away from corruption. This guide covers the symptoms of an oversized state, the band-aids teams reach for, and the structural fix that actually works. How Terraform state works under the hood Every terraform plan does two things: Refresh — for every resource in state, Terraform calls the provider's API to read the current real-world status. A state with 500 resources means 500+ API calls, often more when resources have nested data sources. Diff — compare the refreshed state against the desired configuration and produce a change set. The refresh phase is the bottleneck. It's sequential per provider (parallelism helps across providers, not within one), and every resource pays the cost whether you changed it or not. Adding ten resources to a 500-resource state doesn't make plans 2% slower — it makes the refresh 2% slower on every single plan, for every engineer, forever. Symptoms of a state that's too large Slow plans The most visible symptom. Plan time scales with resource count because every resource is refreshed on every plan, regardless of whether its configuration changed. The exact speed depends on provider — AWS resources with complex nested structures (IAM policies, security group rules) are slower to refresh than simple ones, and Azure resources that require multiple API calls per refresh are worse still. These aren't edge cases — users regularly report 2,900-resource states taking 20–25 minutes to plan and 1,600-resource states taking 8+ minutes . Even starting Terraform with a large state can take minutes before a single API call is made . There's a long-standing proposal for terraform

IndexCache: Killing the Indexer's O(NL²) Bottleneck in DeepSeek Sparse Attention Notes from my notebook on GLM-5.2 / DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA), reconstructed from the IndexCache paper (Bai, Dong et al., Tsinghua + Z.ai, 2026) — the mechanism behind GLM-5.2's "IndexShare." 1. Why this exists — the bottleneck nobody talks about DSA's whole pitch is: don't do full O(L²) attention, instead let a cheap lightning indexer look at all preceding tokens and pick the top-k (k=2048) that actually matter, then do real attention only on those. That drops core attention from O(L²) → O(Lk). Great — except I missed this the first time I read DSA: the indexer itself is still O(L²) . It has to score every preceding token against the query to decide who's in the top-k. So across N layers you've traded one O(L²) cost for N separate O(L²) costs — total O(NL²). At long context this indexer becomes the dominant cost, not the attention it was supposed to fix. Adding the indexer is "DSA on steroids" because it kills DSA's one real bottleneck (full attention) — but in doing so, it grows its own. The indexer is cheap per-FLOP (few heads, low-rank, FP8) but it still runs at every single layer. The fix the paper proposes isn't a smarter indexer — it's don't run it every layer at all. 2. The core insight: adjacent layers pick almost the same tokens If you measure pairwise overlap between the top-k token sets selected by each layer's indexer, adjacent layers share 70–100% of their picks. The heatmap even shows block structure — clusters of layers (e.g. layers 3–5, 17–30, etc.) that all converge on roughly the same "important" tokens. So most of the O(NL²) indexer cost is redundant computation of the same answer. This motivates IndexCache : split the N layers into two roles — F (Full) layers — run their own indexer, compute fresh top-k, cache it. S (Shared) layers — skip the indexer entirely, just reuse the nearest preceding F layer's cached top-k. The first layer is always F (has to seed the

devtools #infrastructureascode #cdk #aws Index TL;DR Major Features Bedrock AgentCore — From Alpha to Stable Fn::GetStackOutput & Weak Cross-Stack References Validations Framework Performance Improvements CloudWatch PromQL Alarms CLI Improvements New L2 Constructs Service Enhancements Community Highlights Community Content & Resources How Can You Be Involved Hey CDK community! Here's an update covering everything that shipped in April and May 2026. TL;DR Bedrock AgentCore graduated to stable — production-ready AI agent infrastructure with semver guarantees. Cross-region references got a major upgrade with native Fn::GetStackOutput support and weak cross-stack references. The new Validations framework replaces policyValidationBeta1 with a richer plugin system. And file fingerprinting is ~33% faster with persistent asset caching. These features are available in aws-cdk-lib v2.247.0 through v2.257.0 and aws-cdk CLI v2.1116.0 through v2.1125.0. Full changelogs on GitHub Releases ( Library | CLI ). Major Features Bedrock AgentCore — From Alpha to Stable The @aws-cdk/aws-bedrock-agentcore-alpha module has graduated to aws-cdk-lib/aws-bedrockagentcore — stable APIs, semver guarantees, production-ready. If you've been building AI agents with Bedrock but held off on CDK because of the alpha label, it's time to upgrade. ( #37876 ) AgentCore provides the core infrastructure for building AI agents: runtimes, gateways, identity management, observability, and online evaluation. The Policy submodule remains in alpha as it continues to evolve rapidly. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Bedrock AgentCore (Stable) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │ │ Runtime │ │ Gateway │ │ Identity │ │ │ │ (L2) │ │ (L2) │ │ (L2) │ │ │ └────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │ │Observa- │ │Online │ │ Policy Engine │ │ │

Our infrastructure "documentation" was a Google Sheet. Anyone on the team could edit it. Nobody...

GitOps policy drift is what happens when a control plane keeps a policy perfectly reconciled long after the reason for that policy has stopped being true. Every commit is applied. Every pull request is merged cleanly. Every dashboard reads green. And the rule being enforced no longer reflects anything anyone would choose to enforce today — it just hasn't been told to stop. That gap is the subject of this post. Not configuration drift — the thing GitOps was built to kill — but a second, quieter failure mode that lives one layer above it: the policy is right by every technical measure and wrong by every practical one, and nothing in the reconciliation loop is capable of telling the difference. The Promise GitOps Actually Kept GitOps earned its place in the infrastructure as code architecture stack by solving a real and expensive problem: state drift. Before declarative reconciliation, infrastructure diverged from its source of truth constantly — a console change here, an emergency hotfix there, a manual override nobody logged. The git repository said one thing. Production said another. Reconciling the two was a forensic exercise. GitOps closed that gap with a simple, durable mechanism: a controller that continuously compares declared state to actual state and corrects the difference without waiting for a human to notice. That's not a small win. It's the reason platform teams can run infrastructure at a scale that would have been operationally unmanageable a decade ago, and it's why GitOps controllers sit at the center of nearly every modern infrastructure as code architecture built since. This post isn't an argument against that mechanism. It's an argument that the mechanism's success created a blind spot nobody designed for. What GitOps Never Promised to Solve Here's the boundary GitOps was never built to cross: reconciliation proves that declared state and actual state match. It says nothing about whether the declared state should still exist in its current form. A

This time around we look back at May 2026 and the 11 Puppetlabs module releases on the Forge, with an emphasis on the changes most likely to matter in active environments. Highlighted Updates New Windows audit policy module released! The new audit_policy module has been released by Perforce as a Ruby replacement for the generated DSC community auditpolicydsc module . This module uses Puppet Resources API for managing Windows audit policy using auditpol.exe ruby_task_helper Dependency Bound Update Five Bolt-adjacent modules all bumped the ruby_task_helper upper bound to < 2.0.0 in a coordinated maintenance pass, helping with dependency resolution failures when using Bolt 5.x. Affected modules: vault, terraform, http_request, gcloud_inventory, azure_inventory. CentOS 9 Support Multiple modules added explicit CentOS 9 compatibility, expanding the Linux platform coverage in line with the broader Puppet ecosystem push. Affected modules: concat, inifile. What Updates Happened to Puppetlabs Modules in May 2026? The following is an alphabetical listing of modules which received updates in May 2026. If a module had multiple versions released, the updates are collected together, numbered with the "latest" version available. apt 11.3.1 📅 Latest release: 2026-05-19 (🌐 View on the Forge ) This release introduced an explicit hash value syntax while also adding a param to support purging keyrings and other community contributions. Includes monthly releases: 11.3.1 (2026-05-19), 11.3.0 (2026-05-18). Use explicit hash value syntax instead of shorthand #1285 ( SugatD ) Add param for purging keyrings #1266 ( bwitt ) Include components when suite does not end with slash #1259 ( bwitt ) Bugfix - sources format and ensure => absent fails #1243 ( traylenator ) fix: allow plus signs in ppa #1222 ( moritz-makandra ) Fix and improve DEB822-style template #1212 ( smortex ) audit_policy 1.0.0 🌟 New Module: 2026-05-29 (🌐 View on the Forge ) This new module allows you to manage Windows audit pol