Stories with Tag SRE

• Take this on-call rotation and shove it

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-27 21:09:28

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author argues against the common practice of on-call rotations, particularly as implemented by many tech companies. They contend that being constantly tethered to work, even when "off," is detrimental to employee well-being and ultimately unproductive. Instead of reactive on-call systems interrupting rest and personal time, the author advocates for a proactive approach: building more robust and resilient systems that minimize failures, investing in thorough automated testing and observability, and fostering a culture of shared responsibility for system health. This shift, they believe, would lead to a healthier, more sustainable work environment and ultimately higher quality software.

  In a provocative blog post entitled "Take this on-call rotation and shove it," author Scott Mitelli articulates a profound dissatisfaction with the contemporary practice of on-call rotations, particularly as they are implemented within the software development industry. He posits that the current system, frequently touted as a shared responsibility amongst team members, is, in reality, a deleterious imposition that significantly degrades the quality of life for engineers. He argues that the constant anticipation of potential disruptions, the intrusive nature of alerts, and the requirement to be perpetually available negatively impact mental well-being, disrupt personal time, and ultimately lead to engineer burnout.

  Mitelli meticulously deconstructs the purported benefits of on-call rotations, challenging the notion that they foster a sense of ownership and shared understanding of the system. He suggests that the pressure and anxiety associated with being on-call often overshadow any potential learning opportunities, and that the fear of making mistakes under pressure can stifle experimentation and innovation. He further contends that the disruption to sleep patterns, family life, and leisure activities engendered by on-call duties creates a chronic state of stress that is unsustainable in the long term.

  The author proceeds to explore alternative approaches to managing system reliability and incident response. He advocates for a more proactive approach that prioritizes building robust and resilient systems from the outset, thereby minimizing the need for constant intervention. He also suggests investing in comprehensive automated monitoring and alerting systems that can effectively filter noise and escalate issues only when genuinely necessary. Furthermore, he champions the concept of dedicated site reliability engineering (SRE) teams as a more specialized and sustainable solution for managing complex systems, arguing that these specialized teams can develop the expertise and dedicated focus necessary to handle incidents effectively without imposing the burden on the entire development team.

  In essence, Mitelli's central argument is that the current on-call rotation model is a flawed and outdated practice that should be replaced by more thoughtful and sustainable approaches to system reliability and incident management. He concludes with a call to action, urging companies and engineers to critically evaluate the impact of on-call rotations and to explore alternative models that prioritize the well-being and professional development of their engineering teams. He paints a picture of a future where engineers can focus on building innovative and reliable systems without the constant dread of being summoned to address production issues at any given moment.

  • on-call
  • on-call rotation
  • on-call fatigue
  • burnout
  • stress
  • developer burnout
  • software engineering
  • work-life balance
  • pager duty
  • alert fatigue
  • Incident Management
  • DevOps
  • SRE
  • site reliability engineering
  • system administration
  • tech culture
  • Work Culture

  Summary of Comments ( 19 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43498213

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users largely agreed with the author's sentiment about the burden of on-call rotations, particularly poorly implemented ones. Several commenters shared their own horror stories of disruptive and stressful on-call experiences, emphasizing the importance of adequate compensation, proper tooling, and a respectful culture around on-call duties. Some suggested alternative approaches like follow-the-sun models or no on-call at all, advocating for better engineering practices to minimize outages. A few pushed back slightly, noting that some level of on-call is unavoidable in certain industries and that the author's situation seemed particularly egregious. The most compelling comments highlighted the negative impact poorly managed on-call has on mental health and work-life balance, with some arguing it can be a major factor in burnout and attrition.

  The Hacker News post titled "Take this on-call rotation and shove it" generated a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of on-call work and the author's perspective. Several commenters generally agreed with the author's frustrations regarding poorly implemented on-call rotations, particularly the lack of proper compensation and the disruption to personal life.

  One compelling comment thread focused on the distinction between being "on-call" and effectively working a second shift. Commenters argued that true on-call work should be compensated appropriately for the inconvenience and disruption, even if no incidents occur. However, if the on-call duty consistently requires active work and prevents personal time, it should be treated as regular work hours and compensated accordingly. This discussion highlighted the importance of clearly defined expectations and fair compensation for on-call responsibilities.

  Several users shared their own experiences with dysfunctional on-call rotations, echoing the author's sentiments about the negative impact on well-being and work-life balance. These anecdotes served to validate the author's claims and illustrate the prevalence of this issue in the tech industry.

  Another point of discussion revolved around the importance of building resilient systems that minimize the need for constant on-call intervention. Commenters suggested that prioritizing proactive measures, such as thorough testing, robust monitoring, and automated remediation, can significantly reduce the burden on on-call engineers. This preventative approach was presented as a more sustainable solution compared to relying on reactive responses to frequent incidents.

  Some comments also touched upon the cultural aspect of on-call work, emphasizing the need for companies to foster a supportive environment that recognizes and values the contributions of on-call engineers. Suggestions included providing adequate training, clear escalation paths, and mechanisms for feedback and improvement.

  While there wasn't overwhelming agreement with every point made by the author, many comments reflected a shared understanding of the challenges associated with on-call work and the need for better practices within the industry. The discussion overall provided valuable insights into the complexities of managing on-call rotations effectively and ensuring the well-being of engineers.

• War Rooms vs. Deep Investigations

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-23 12:01:56

  Verbose tl;dr

  The post contrasts "war rooms," reactive, high-pressure environments focused on immediate problem-solving during outages, with "deep investigations," proactive, methodical explorations aimed at understanding the root causes of incidents and preventing recurrence. While war rooms are necessary for rapid response and mitigation, their intense focus on the present often hinders genuine learning. Deep investigations, though requiring more time and resources, ultimately offer greater long-term value by identifying systemic weaknesses and enabling preventative measures, leading to more stable and resilient systems. The author argues for a balanced approach, acknowledging the critical role of war rooms but emphasizing the crucial importance of dedicating sufficient attention and resources to post-incident deep investigations.

  Rachel Kroll's blog post, "War Rooms vs. Deep Investigations," delves into the contrasting approaches to troubleshooting complex technical issues, drawing a parallel between the frenetic energy of a "war room" and the more methodical, deliberate nature of a "deep investigation." Kroll argues that while the war room model, characterized by its intense, real-time collaboration and focus on rapid resolution, might appear superficially appealing, it often proves less effective than a thorough, patient investigation when dealing with intricate, deeply-rooted problems.

  The war room scenario, as depicted by Kroll, involves assembling a large group of individuals, often representing diverse teams and areas of expertise, into a physical or virtual space. This assembly operates under significant pressure to swiftly identify and rectify the issue at hand, frequently driven by high-visibility outages or critical business disruptions. This urgency, while understandable, can foster an environment prone to hasty decisions, overlooked details, and a tendency to prioritize immediate fixes over addressing the underlying causes. The emphasis on rapid action can also inadvertently stifle individual thought and critical analysis as the group gravitates towards a perceived consensus, potentially missing crucial insights that might emerge from a more solitary, reflective approach.

  In contrast, Kroll champions the "deep investigation" methodology, which emphasizes a more measured, analytical process. This approach prioritizes a comprehensive understanding of the system and its intricacies, often involving extensive data gathering, meticulous log analysis, and rigorous testing. It encourages individual exploration and independent thought, allowing engineers to delve into specific aspects of the problem without the pressure of a large group dynamic. While this method may require more time and resources upfront, Kroll posits that it ultimately leads to more robust and sustainable solutions by addressing the root cause of the problem rather than merely patching its symptoms. This, she argues, not only prevents recurrence but also enhances overall system resilience and understanding.

  Furthermore, Kroll highlights the potential for war rooms to exacerbate existing communication challenges and amplify stress levels. The high-pressure environment can hinder effective communication and collaboration, leading to misunderstandings and misdirected efforts. Conversely, the focused, individual work favored by deep investigations allows for clearer thinking and more precise communication when collaboration is eventually required.

  In essence, Kroll advocates for a shift in mindset from reactive firefighting to proactive problem-solving. She suggests that while the allure of the war room's rapid response is undeniable, the long-term benefits of a deep investigation, with its focus on understanding and addressing the underlying issues, far outweigh the perceived advantages of swift, but often superficial, fixes.

  • Incident Management
  • Incident Response
  • crisis management
  • Problem Solving
  • Debugging
  • Troubleshooting
  • Root Cause Analysis
  • postmortem analysis
  • software engineering
  • DevOps
  • SRE
  • systems thinking
  • Complex Systems
  • pressure
  • stress
  • cognitive bias
  • decision making
  • information overload

  Summary of Comments ( 41 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43148683

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that "war rooms" for incident response are often ineffective, preferring deep investigations and addressing underlying systemic issues. Several shared personal anecdotes reinforcing the futility of war rooms and the value of blameless postmortems. Some questioned the author's characterization of Google's approach, suggesting their postmortems are deep investigations. Others debated the definition of "war room" and its potential utility in specific, limited scenarios like DDoS attacks where rapid coordination is crucial. A few commenters highlighted the importance of leadership buy-in for effective post-incident analysis and the difficulty of shifting organizational culture away from blame. The contrast between "firefighting" and "fire prevention" through proper engineering practices was also a recurring theme.

  The Hacker News post "War Rooms vs. Deep Investigations" (linking to Rachel Kroll's blog post about incident response) generated a lively discussion with several compelling comments.

  Many commenters focused on the distinction between "war rooms" and deep investigations, echoing and expanding on Kroll's points. Some argued that war rooms, while potentially useful for quick coordination and communication during critical incidents, can hinder proper investigation and root cause analysis due to their focus on immediate remediation. They emphasized the importance of dedicated, post-incident investigations free from the pressure of ongoing outages. One commenter likened war rooms to treating symptoms while deep investigations aim to cure the underlying disease.

  Several people shared their personal experiences, offering concrete examples of both successful and unsuccessful incident response strategies. One recounted a situation where a war room devolved into a blame-fest, hindering progress. Another described the benefits of a hybrid approach, using a war room for initial triage and coordination, followed by a dedicated investigation team working independently.

  The discussion also touched upon the role of blame in incident response. Many commenters agreed that blame should be avoided during the initial response phase, focusing instead on restoring service. However, they acknowledged the importance of accountability in post-incident reviews, not to punish individuals, but to learn from mistakes and improve future processes.

  Several comments highlighted the crucial role of documentation and postmortems. They stressed the need for clear, concise reports that capture not only the technical details of the incident but also the decision-making process and communication flow.

  Some commenters discussed the psychological impact of major incidents on engineers and the importance of creating a supportive environment. One suggested providing engineers with dedicated time and resources for recovery after a stressful incident.

  Finally, the discussion explored the relationship between incident response and organizational culture. Some argued that a blame-free culture is essential for effective incident response, encouraging open communication and collaboration. They suggested that organizations should view incidents as opportunities for learning and improvement rather than occasions for punishment.

• Grafana: Why observability needs FinOps, and vice versa

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-06 19:13:34

  Verbose tl;dr

  Observability and FinOps are increasingly intertwined, and integrating them provides significant benefits. This blog post highlights the newly launched Vantage integration with Grafana Cloud, which allows users to combine cost data with observability metrics. By correlating resource usage with cost, teams can identify optimization opportunities, understand the financial impact of performance issues, and make informed decisions about resource allocation. This integration enables better control over cloud spending, faster troubleshooting, and more efficient infrastructure management by providing a single pane of glass for both technical performance and financial analysis. Ultimately, it empowers organizations to achieve a balance between performance and cost.

  The Grafana blog post, "Why observability needs FinOps, and vice versa: The Vantage integration with Grafana Cloud," emphasizes the synergistic relationship between observability and FinOps (cloud financial operations), arguing that each discipline significantly enhances the other, leading to more efficient and cost-effective cloud usage. The integration of Vantage, a FinOps platform by Google Cloud, with Grafana Cloud is presented as a practical example of this synergy.

  The post begins by highlighting the challenges faced by organizations adopting cloud technologies, particularly the difficulty in understanding and managing cloud costs. It argues that traditional cost management tools are insufficient for the dynamic and complex nature of cloud environments. Observability, with its focus on detailed insights into system performance and behavior, is positioned as a crucial component for gaining a deeper understanding of cost drivers. By correlating cost data with operational metrics, organizations can identify areas of inefficiency, optimize resource allocation, and ultimately reduce cloud spend.

  Conversely, the post argues that FinOps practices benefit observability efforts. By understanding the cost implications of different observability strategies, organizations can make informed decisions about data collection, retention, and analysis. This prevents overspending on excessive data ingestion and storage while ensuring that sufficient data is available for effective monitoring and troubleshooting.

  The integration of Vantage with Grafana Cloud is presented as a key enabler of this bidirectional benefit. Vantage brings granular cost and usage data into the Grafana ecosystem, allowing users to visualize, analyze, and correlate cost information with other operational metrics within a single platform. This unified view empowers teams to pinpoint cost anomalies, investigate their root causes, and implement corrective actions.

  The post provides specific examples of how the integration can be leveraged, such as identifying idle or underutilized resources, tracking the cost of specific applications or services, and analyzing the impact of code changes on cloud spend. It highlights features like cost-optimized alerting, which allows users to set thresholds for cost-related metrics and receive notifications when those thresholds are exceeded. This proactive approach enables teams to address cost issues before they escalate.

  Furthermore, the blog post emphasizes the collaborative aspect of FinOps and observability, suggesting that bringing together engineering, finance, and operations teams through a shared platform fosters better communication and alignment around cost optimization goals. This cross-functional collaboration is crucial for implementing effective FinOps strategies and realizing the full potential of cloud cost savings. The post concludes by reiterating the importance of integrating FinOps and observability for achieving sustainable cloud financial management and driving business value.

  • Grafana
  • Observability
  • FinOps
  • Cloud Cost Management
  • Cost Optimization
  • Monitoring
  • Vantage
  • Integration
  • Cloud Computing
  • DevOps
  • SRE
  • Infrastructure Monitoring
  • performance monitoring
  • AIOps

  Summary of Comments ( 5 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42965499

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally express skepticism about the purported synergy between FinOps and observability. Several suggest that while cost visibility is important, integrating FinOps directly into observability platforms like Grafana might be overkill, creating unnecessary complexity and vendor lock-in. They argue for maintaining separate tools and focusing on clear cost allocation tagging strategies instead. Some also point out potential conflicts of interest, with engineering teams prioritizing performance over cost and finance teams lacking the technical expertise to interpret complex observability data. A few commenters see some value in the integration for specific use cases like anomaly detection and right-sizing resources, but the prevailing sentiment is one of cautious pragmatism.

  The Hacker News post "Grafana: Why observability needs FinOps, and vice versa" has generated a few comments, primarily focusing on the increasing costs associated with observability tools and the complexities of managing them effectively.

  One commenter highlights the irony of needing cost management tools for the very systems meant to monitor and optimize other systems. They express a sentiment that the ever-expanding tooling ecosystem for cloud infrastructure creates a cycle of needing more tools to manage the previous set of tools. This resonates with the idea that observability, while crucial, can become a significant expense if not carefully managed.

  Another commenter points out the inherent conflict between the detailed data collection required for effective observability and the associated costs. They argue that "observability is in direct tension with saving money." This implies that the desire for granular insights often leads to increased storage and processing costs, creating a trade-off between visibility and affordability. They further suggest that cost analysis within observability systems should be a core feature, not an afterthought, to help manage this tension.

  A third commenter expresses frustration with the current state of observability and monitoring tools. They claim that such tools often become bloated and difficult to manage. They call for simpler, more focused tools that provide crucial metrics without unnecessary complexity, ultimately aiming for a more manageable and cost-effective solution. This sentiment aligns with the overall discussion around the escalating costs and complexities of maintaining comprehensive observability.

  The discussion, while concise, revolves around the practical challenges of implementing observability. The comments emphasize the need for better cost management practices within observability tools themselves, highlighting the growing tension between the benefits of detailed monitoring and the increasing financial burden it can impose.