Category Archives: DevOps

Pertaining to agile system administration concepts and techniques.

Monitoring and Observability

Ah, observability, the new buzzword of the day. Monitoring vendors aplenty are using the word, to basically mean “better monitoring!” You know, #monitoringlove not #monitoringsucks. Because monitoring doesn’t help with debugging and doesn’t have app instrumentation right?

Well, I have to say “bah” to that.  So here’s the thing.  I’m an electrical engineer by education, and I spent a lot of time working at National Instruments, an engineering test and measurement company.  You may be surprised to know these terms have actual definitions that don’t require Twitter arguments to discover.

Monitoring is an activity you perform. It’s simply observing the state of a system over a period of time.

Why do we monitor? For three reasons, in general.

  • Problem Detection – you know, alerting, or seeing issues on dashboards.
  • Problem Resolution – root cause and troubleshooting.
  • Continuous Improvement – capacity planning, financial planning, trending, performance engineering, reporting.

How do we monitor?  Well, that’s called instrumentation. You can instrument your systems and get CPU and stuff, you can use synthetic probes, you can use JavaScript bugs to get end user monitoring, you can emit metrics from applications, you can introspect services and apps via whatever parts are exposed (from JMX to nginx stats to sysdig traces), you can take network traces… (Some folks are similarly trying to redefine “instrumentation” to just mean application instrumentation, which is lame, and in defiance of the fact that application performance management tools that do app instrumentation have existed for decades.)

You can instrument metrics or events; metrics have certain sampling frequency and resolution…

So what is observability?  This isn’t a new term. It comes from system control theory. You know, the stuff that makes your A/C system and electrical plants and your car work.

Observability is a measure of how well the internal states of a system can be inferred from knowledge of its external outputs.

Observability is a property of a system. You can monitor a system using various instrumentation, but if the system doesn’t externalize its state well enough that you can figure out what’s actually going on in there, then you’re stuck.

So is observability hippy bullcrap?  No, of course not. In a DevOps world, it’s very important that the apps and systems concentrate on making themselves both observable and controllable (I leave it to the reader to research controllability, unless I get agitated enough to post about that too). Do you make yourself “easy to monitor”?

Externalizing custom metrics contributes to observability (you know, like with dropwizard metrics).  So does good logging.  So does proper architecture!  Take a system that sticks all kinds of messages into one message queue rather than using separate queues for separate types – the latter is more observable; you can more readily see how many of what is flowing through.  (It’s more controllable too, as you can shut off one queue or another.)

Making your system observable is therefore important, so that if you monitor it with appropriate instrumentation, you understand the state of the system and can make short or long term plans to change it.

While a monitoring tool can definitely contribute to this via its innovation in instrumentation, analysis, and visualization, in large part observability is a battle won or lost before you start sticking tools on top of the system. It’s very important to take it into account when designing and implementing services. No tool is going to “give you” observability and that’s the usual silver bullet fallacy heard from someone who wants to sell you something.

I’m not saying every vendor is using the term wrongly (in fact I just came across this New Relic post that is very well done), but I have to say I am less than impressed when common engineering terms are so widely misused and misunderstood widely in our industry.

Would you like to know more?  Peco and I are working on a new lynda.com course on monitoring and observability!  There’ll be real engineering, a broad canvas of the different kinds of monitoring instrumentation, tips on implementation and use… We’ve both been using and/or building monitoring tools for decades now so we hope to have some useful info for you.

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps, Monitoring

CNCF and K8s 101’s

I never make New Year’s resolutions, but I want to do something different for 2018!

One thing I’m learning a lot about is Kubernetes and the CNCF ecosystem around it over the past couple of years and often find myself having a hard time keeping up with ecosystem sometimes. There are almost weekly releases on the many projects, and getting started content for all the new tools and technology is hard to find.

So! I plan to do quick 101 blogs on different topics under the Container/Kubernetes/CNCF umbrella. My first blog article will be on Prometheus- The monitoring tool that integrates GREAT with k8s! It’ll be based on my GitHub code here: https://github.com/karthequian/prometheus-demo (shhh sneak peak).

But, I need your help! Give me a list of things you are confused about in the container space, or want more info on, and I’ll be happy to do the legwork on it!

So, give me input here, or on twitter!

1 Comment

Filed under Cloud, DevOps, k8s, Monitoring

Released! Learning Kubernetes and K8s: Native Tools

 

I’ve been working on the managed Kubernetes Engine at Oracle as described here by my StackEngine CEO Bob Quillin.

Being knee deep in the Kubernetes and CNCF ecosystem is very exciting, and it reminds me a lot of the early days of the Docker ecosystem. Kubecon in December had a lot going on with a plethora of projects and lots of vendors. In the future, I believe Kubernetes will be the defacto platform that many large enterprises will use as their orchestration and IT platform when they look to modernize their architecture. It is either all Kubernetes, or all cloud native, or serverless, or somewhere in between.

And speaking of K8s, my Lynda courses on Kubernetes just released! I had filmed them late last year at Lynda’s campus in Carpinteria, CA- Learning Kubernetes and Kubernetes: Native Tools!

Learning Kubernetes covers all the information you’ll need to get started using Kubernetes- the concepts, examples, install and everything you’ll need to get started rocking with k8s!

Kubernetes: Native Tools is a shorter course that covers the different tools available in the k8s ecosystem.

Let me know what you think- and, reach out if you have questions or issues! K8s might be overwhelming initially, but stick with it, and it’ll make your container management life so much easier!

9 Comments

Filed under DevOps

DevOpsDays Summit Austin 2018 – “DevOps Unplugged”

Hey all!  We’re starting work on next year’s DevOpsDays Austin – our seventh here in the ATX.  Many of you have come out to the event (or another of the great DevOpsDays around the world). Well, we have some changes in store this year!

Last year’s DevOpsDays Austin, “Monsters of DevOps” was bigger than ever and had a stadium rock theme – we had a huge venue,  all the DevOps VIPs we could pull down (including the first time all 4 authors of the DevOps Handbook managed to get together at an event), multiple content tracks, killer swag, great food, a hackathon, the best Happy Hour I’ve attended at a conference, we invited in and comped local user groups to give talks…  Part of our continuing trajectory to make DoDA more all encompassing and awesome.

But – every year we sit down and discuss vision before we launch into the conference.  What do we want to accomplish and why?  Who are we serving and why?  Why are we, personally, putting in huge amounts of unpaid work to serve the community? “Because it’s there and we did it last year” isn’t a good answer, so we like to really put some thought into it.

This time when we talked about it, first in our core group and then with the rest of the 2017 organizers, we realized that we’ve been concentrating on “bigger” but we’ve been putting more and more money and effort into the parts of the event that aren’t really of high DevOps value. Here in Texas, it’s easy to conflate bigger with better, since we’re both the biggest and the best!  But we’re not sure that’s right. Many of the more expert people we know here in Austin don’t really come out to the event any more, unless they are giving a talk or recruiting for their current gig.  Talks and openspaces have kept focused on introducing new people to DevOps, enterprise folks, “horses and donkeys,” and so on.

And as we talked, we said “Well – what do we personally get out of the conference nowadays as attendees?”  The answer was “not much.” Openspaces are huge and end up being a couple people talking.  Talks are either pretty familiar from the conference circuit or also designed for new folks.  We have more content but it’s more passive content, sit and watch.  It’s good for the newbies but not as much for the experienced folks.

We contrasted this to the first couple DevOpsDays we went to in Silicon Valley.  The first couple were just in a big auditorium at LinkedIn.  There weren’t any sponsor booths. More of the event was focused on the openspaces and interaction between the highly driven participants. We ate box lunches wherever we could perch in the parking lot outside – and swag was just a t-shirt.  Heck, the third one was in a weird abandoned building Dave Nielsen had access to, we had to carry our own chairs around to talks and the food and stuff was in a concrete-and-cage loading dock. But it’s those events we got the most out of.

Therefore, this year DevOpsDays Austin is going to go to what we call a “Summit” format.  We’re reducing the size of the event, and focusing more on local, motivated practitioners.  What does this mean?

  1. No sponsor tables.  We’d love sponsors to participate, but in recent years we’ve gotten more folks who have either just sent aggressive marketers, or sent people we enjoy and then locked then down behind tables. So we’ve come up with a sponsorship package that gets them exposure and value but lets them actually participate in the event.  Folks that just want to churn leads will self-select out.  The sponsorships are less expensive, and we’ll just have venue food etc. instead of premium.
  2. No preselected talks.  Well, OK, maybe we’ll have one keynote a day.  But I went to a ProductCamp here in Austin and they did something brilliant – they had a RFC but don’t do a final selection – finalists show up and the audience votes on what talks they want to hear (kinda like openspaces but more prepared).  This means people who say ‘well… I’ll come to your event if I can talk (or sponsor if I can talk, or…)’ will self-select out. You come because you want to be here, and you can give a talk!
  3. Smaller headcount.  We’re lowering the cap (including sponsors and organizers and volunteers) to 400. We’re going to get openspaces to be the kind of highly engaged discussions that make the so valuable.  We’re going to be up front with people that attendees are expected to engage.  DoD used to be the only thing around to learn from.  But now, if you’re an enterprise person that wants to have some DevOps talked at them – you have  variety of options now, like you can go to DevOps Enterprise Summit (also a great event), or to another DevOpsDays like the one in Dallas using the conference format, or one of a dozen events either completely DevOps or DevOps-tracked.  But for here in Austin this year, we need something where the unicorns can also have an event meaningful to them, so they can gather and refresh on what’s going on. Not to say only “unicorns” are welcome, but frankly we’d prefer people only come out if they intend to discuss, share, and engage; this will not be a passive-learning friendly event.
  4. No streaming.  Every year we put a lot of work and money into live-streaming and/or recording the event.  But it’s often problematic, and doesn’t get viewed a lot – there’s so much content out there now.  But even worse, we end up having to degrade the experience of real attendees around the requirements of broadcast – space, money, schedule, the presenter has to stay in a little box… So we’re not going to do it.  You want to participate – come out and participate.

But How Can This Work???

That was everyone’s initial reaction to this plan.  But that’s silly – it has worked.  We’re just doing things that DevOpsDays has already done, that ProductCamp has already done, and so on. It’s just not what’s become customary.  After the organizers had a little time for it to sink in, they all rallied behind it with a vengeance.

We’ve run the numbers and just the basic $200/head attendee fees can pay for the venue, basic food, and a shirt, even if we get zero sponsors.  (We won’t have zero sponsors, we just put our sponsor page up and someone bought in the first hour it was live.) As we get more funding we’ll pump up the event, but deliberately focus on the core experience of highly skilled techies learning from each other, instead of adding distractions.

How Dare You Dis My Format???

This is the format we’d like to try this year.  Other events will use other formats and that’s fine. Here at DoDA we try something different every year!  We were the first to have multiple content tracks (over the complaints of some purists).  We added a hackathon, we added a local user group track… Last year we went big with a vengeance, and it was cool.  Now we’re going to do more small and exclusive, and that’ll be cool.  Next year, it’ll be different. Whatever your event is doing, more power to you, don’t confuse us having a vision we believe in with us thinking you’re “wrong.”

Come on down!

We’d love to see everyone out at DevOpsDays Austin 2018!  Come ready to interact and share.  Come ready to give a talk, with the risk it won’t make.  Come sponsor your company, just you won’t have a table to lounge at. This change has gotten us excited about running our seventh DevOpsDays, and we bet you’ll love it!

9 Comments

Filed under Conferences, DevOps

Assigning Fault To Human Error Is A Human Error

fitz-1024x683

We all know from DevOps blameless retrospective wisdom that there is no such thing as a single “root cause.”  One of the most common root causes people like to assign blame to is “human error”.  Not to mince words, this is usually political, buck-passing CYA of the highest order.

I just read a great article on the recent U.S. Navy ship collision issues I wanted to pass on.  If you have been keeping up with the news, there has been a rash of Navy ships colliding with other ships causing fatalities. When you go Google it up, you see a whole bunch of “Navy attributes it to human error…”

But now go read this article, Something’s Wrong In The Surface Fleet And We’re Not Talking About It.  It’s written by Capt. Michael Junge, an experienced Naval officer. The TL;DR is that you can say “human error” all you want, fire someone, and call it case closed, but these accidents are a systemic amount of understaffing of Naval surface ships and massive undertraining and maintenance that is a leading indicator of even worse to come should an actual wartime deployment be necessary.

Even in engineering, we are tempted to push the problem down onto the person that made a mistake.  Fully engaging with the system that caused the need for the action that caused the mistake, the lack of validation that makes mistakes possible, and so on is hard thinkin’.  It is threatening when people point out flaws in processes and systems and code you had a hand in.  But the only way to actually improve your situation is to soberly assess what the actual contributors to issues are, and work towards fixing them.

4 Comments

Filed under DevOps

Java Docker Pull Travails

Just had a problem that I thought I’d document the solution to for the world…

In our build pipeline at work, we use maven and the fabric8 docker-maven-plugin to manage our builds.  We love it, developers can just “mvn install” locally and then the Atlassian Bamboo build system just “mvn deploy”s in the exact same way.

Well, so we had some builds that suddenly weren’t able to pull the base images specified in our Dockerfiles down from Dockerhub, breaking the build with 500 error messages like:

[ERROR] DOCKER> Unable to pull 'library/debian:sid' from registry 'docker.io' : received unexpected HTTP status: 500 Server Error (Internal Server Error: 500) [received unexpected HTTP status: 500 Server Error (Internal Server Error: 500)]

But it worked fine on our local box. And it could pull our custom images from Artifactory fine. What’s the problem here?  Bamboo?  The plugin? Well, some helpful community folks helped home in on it, it turns out that for some versions of Java 1.8, 8u131 and prior at least going back to 112, where there’s some problem (TLS? Root certs? Not really sure) that messes up when pulling a docker.io container from inside Java during our docker build step.  My team’s microservices aren’t Java based so the Java version doesn’t come up much – but of course maven uses Java.

Upgrading the JDK version to 8u144 made the problem go away.  We actually have an up to date curated Java version we use in Bamboo for our Java builds, but folks doing Python builds were just using the default “JDK 1.8” that Atlassian is putting on their Bamboo build agent AMI, which is of course old and suffers from this issue.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps

Long live ChatOps, RIP AOL IM!

I grew up in Muscat, Oman, and it was an exciting time when we got Internet at home in 1996. By 1998, all of my friends who had Internet at home were first on ICQ and then on AOL IM. AOL IM was huge when I went to college in the early 2000’s and was the primary way to connect friends together to chat. Back then, it was rare to have chat rooms, and the rooms that existed were usually long-running things set up to talk about general topics.

The first time I saw value in a chat room in a professional setting was when I got invited to a Basecamp “deploy room” by fellow Agile Admin Peco (or was it Ernest?) at NI when our quarterly release cycle was going super poorly, and all of us (100 other people) were waiting around at hour #34 trying to figure out why some random enterprise application was holding up the rest of the release process. Post invitation to the room, I was able to look at the past messages between the ops team about application failures, and then realized pretty quickly that our databases weren’t actually responding like they should. It took all of 10 minutes to ask someone on the ops side with credentials to run a database query, and figure out that the db creds were all wrong. 2 hours later, the release was all done…

That moment made me realize that 1×1 chats were great, but having a persistent chat rooms with teams of people added value to an organization.

Recently, a colleague asked me a simple question that made me reflect. He asked, “What’s the big deal about Slack?”. At work, there’s been a big push to move towards Slack, when we’ve had 1×1 chat forever. Here are my 5 most compelling reasons for doing so:

1) Collaboration++: 15 years ago, software was a simpler, and there was no cloud/microservices. You’d have 1 large binary to deploy for a platform, and typically have a few folks who understood the overall workings of platform. Today, with microservices, you require a bunch of applications to deploy, and each of these have specific owners who understand specifics. Thus, you’re going to have to have conversations with multiple folks to figure out any issues. Having this in a room setting versus a 1×1 setting gets you to a resolution faster.

2) Chat metadata: Chat is less about words, and more about conversations that include images, links, slash commands, workflows etc. Chatops tools make pasting these much easier than before, and looking at formatted code in Slack is so much easier to read than looking at the same in pidgin.

3) Chat History: Chat apps now give you history – even from when you were not online or in the chat room. This is valuable from the perspective that you can see everything from when you weren’t around, and don’t have to ask someone to keep repeating the problem over and over again. You can just scroll up, read the context, and be ready to help if you can. This is my one knock against IRC (or at least the implementation of IRC at a company I worked at); it was nice to have everyone in a spot, but it only worked when we were VPN’ed in, and had no history.

4) Pipelining with chatbots: Continuous Integration/Delivery is all the rage these days! Having a chat system that allows for your devops systems to push data is a primary requirement in order to build a pipeline of this sort. Responses to broken builds, tests, alerts are quicker when the data associated with these are transmitted to a chatroom that you’re looking at, than having to look at Jenkins all the time. Chatbots are invaluable in this scenario, and help you with information flow.

5) The new normal: A new generation of engineers already do this. It’s already part of the culture for the next generation of engineers who work on open source (for example, kubernetes slack) and there’s even chatter about slack at Universities now. The world is evolving towards broader conversation, and not having chatops tools will hurt your company in terms of hiring and retention.

 

Agree/Disagree, or have a different perspective? Let me know by commenting below!

4 Comments

Filed under Agile, DevOps