Spiraling Ops Debt & the SRE coding imperative

This post is part of an SRE series grounded in the ideas inspired by the Google SRE book.

Every Ops team I know is underwater and doesn’t have the time to catch their breath.

Why does the load increase and leave Ops behind?  It’s because IT is increasingly fragmented and siloed by both new tech and past behaviors.  Many teams simply step around their struggling compatriots and spin up yet more Ops work adding to the backlog. Dashing off yet another Ansible playbook to install on AWS is empowering but ultimately adds to the Ops sustaining backlog.


Ops Tsunami

That terrifying observation two years ago led me to create this graphic showing how operations is getting swamped by new demand for infrastructure.


It’s not just the amount of infrastructure: we’ve got an unbounded software variation problem too.

It’s unbounded because we keep rapidly evolving new platforms and those platforms are build on rapidly evolving components.  For example, Kubernetes has a 3 month release cycle.  That’s really fast; however, it built on other components like Docker, SDN and operating systems that also have fast release cycles.  That means that even your single Kubernetes infrastructure has many moving parts that may not be consistent in your own organization.  For example, cloud deploys may use CoreOS while internal ones use a Corporate approved Centos.

And the problem will get worse because infrastructure is cheap and developer productivity is improving.


Since then, we’ve seen an container fueled explosion in developer productivity and AI driven-rise in new hardware-flavored instances. Both are power drivers of infrastructure consumption; however, we have not seen a matching leap in operations tooling (that’s a future post topic!).

That’s why the Google SRE teams require a 50% automation vs Ops ratio.  

If the ratio is >50 then the team slowly sinks under growing operational load.  If you are not actively decreasing the load via automation then your teams get underwater and basic ops hygiene fails.

This is not optional – if you are behind now then it will just get worse!

The escape from the cycle is to get help.  Stop writing automation that you can buy or re-use.  Get help running it.  Don’t waste time solving problems that other people have solved.  That may mean some upfront learning and investment but if you aren’t getting out of your own way then you’ll be run over.


(re)OpenStack for 2017 – board voting week starts this Monday

The OpenStack Project needs a course correction and I’m asking for your community vote to put me back on the 2017 Board to help drive it.  As a start-up CEO, I’m neutral, yet I also have the right technical, commercial and community influence to make this a reality.

Vote Now!Your support is critical because OpenStack fills a very real need and should have a solid future; however, it needs to adapt to market realities to achieve that.

I want the Board to acknowledge and adapt to stumbles in ecosystem success including being dropped or re-prioritized by key sponsors.  This should include tightening the mission so the project can collaborate more freely with both open and proprietary platforms.  In 2016, I’ve been deeply involved OpenStack alternatives including Kubernetes and hybrid Cloud automation with Amazon and Google.

OpenStack must adjust to being one of several alternatives including AWS, Google and container platforms like Kubernetes.

That means focusing on our IaaS strengths and being unambiguous about core function like SDN and storage integration.   It also means ensuring that commercial members of the ecosystem can both profit and compete.  The Board has both the responsibility and authority to make these changes if the members are willing to act.

What’s my background?  I’ve been an active and vocal member of the OpenStack community since the very beginning of the project especially around Operator and Product Management issues.  I was elected to the board four times and played critical roles including launching the DefCore efforts and pushing for more definition of the Big Tent concept (which I believe has hurt the project).

In a great field of candidates!  Like other years, there are many very strong candidates whom I have worked with in a number of roles.  I always recommend distributing your eight votes to multiple people and limited “affinity voting” for your own company or geography.   While all candidates would serve the board, this year, I’d like to call attention specifically to  Shamail Tahair as a candidate who has invested significant time in helping with Product Management and Enterprise Readiness for OpenStack.

Surgical Ansible & Script Injections before, during or after deployment.

I’ve been posting about the unique composable operations approach the RackN team has taken with Digital Rebar to enable hybrid infrastructure and mix-and-match underlay tooling.  The orchestration design (what we call annealing) allows us to dynamically add roles to the environment and execute them as single role/node interactions in operational chains.

ansiblemtaWith our latest patches (short demo videos below), you can now create single role Ansible or Bash scripts dynamically and then incorporate them into the node execution.

That makes it very easy to extend an existing deployment on-the-fly for quick changes or as part of a development process.

You can also run an ad hoc bash script against one or groups of machines.  If that script is something unique to your environment, you can manage it without having to push it back upsteam because Digital Rebar workloads are composable and designed to be safely integrated from multiple sources.

Beyond tweaking running systems, this is fastest script development workflow that I’ve ever seen.  I can make fast, surgical iterative changes to my scripts without having to rerun whole playbooks or runlists.  Even better, I can build multiple operating system environments side-by-side and test changes in parallel.

For secure environments, I don’t have to hand out user SSH access to systems because the actions run in Digital Rebar context.  Digital Rebar can limit control per user or tenant.

I’m very excited about how this capability can be used for dev, test and production systems.  Check it out and let me know what you think.




Evolution or Rebellion? The rise of Site Reliability Engineers (SRE)

What is a Google SRE?  Charity Majors gave a great overview on Datanauts #65, Susan Fowler from Uber talks about “no ops” tensions and Patrick Hill from Atlassian wrote up a good review too.  This is not new: Ben Treynor defined it back in 2014.

DevOps is under attack.

Well, not DevOps exactly but the common misconception that DevOps is about Developers doing Ops (it’s really about lean process, system thinking, and positive culture).  It turns out the Ops is hard and, as I recently discussed with John Furrier, developers really really don’t want be that focused on infrastructure.

In fact, I see containers and serverless as a “developers won’t waste time on ops revolt.”  (I discuss this more in my 2016 retrospective).

The tension between Ops and Dev goes way back and has been a source of confusion for me and my RackN co-founders.  We believe we are developers, except that we spend our whole time focused on writing code for operations.  With the rise of Site Reliability Engineers (SRE) as a job classification, our type of black swan engineer is being embraced as a critical skill.  It’s recognized as the only way to stay ahead of our ravenous appetite for  computing infrastructure.

I’ve been writing about Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) tasks for nearly 5 years under a lot of different names such as DevOps, Ready State, Open Operations and Underlay Operations. SRE is a term popularized by Google (there’s a book!) for the operators who build and automate their infrastructure. Their role is not administration, it is redefining how infrastructure is used and managed within Google.

Using infrastructure effectively is a competitive advantage for Google and their SREs carry tremendous authority and respect for executing on that mission.

ManagersMeanwhile, we’re in the midst of an Enterprise revolt against running infrastructure. Companies, for very good reasons, are shutting down internal IT efforts in favor of using outsourced infrastructure. Operations has simply not been able to complete with the capability, flexibility and breadth of infrastructure services offered by Amazon.

SRE is about operational excellence and we keep up with the increasingly rapid pace of IT.  It’s a recognition that we cannot scale people quickly as we add infrastructure.  And, critically, it is not infrastructure specific.

Over the next year, I’ll continue to dig deeply into the skills, tools and processes around operations.  I think that SRE may be the right banner for these thoughts and I’d like to hear your thoughts about that.

2016 Infrastructure Revolt makes 2017 the “year of the IT Escape Clause”

Software development technology is so frothy that we’re developing collective immunity to constant churn and hype cycles. Lately, every time someone tells me that they have hot “picked technology Foo” they also explain how they are also planning contingencies for when Foo fails. Not if, when.

13633961301245401193crawfish20boil204-mdRequired contingency? That’s why I believe 2017 is the year of the IT Escape Clause, or, more colorfully, the IT Crawfish.

When I lived in New Orleans, I learned that crawfish are anxious creatures (basically tiny lobsters) with powerful (and delicious) tails that propel them backward at any hint of any danger. Their ability to instantly back out of any situation has turned their name into a common use verb: crawfish means to back out or quickly retreat.

In IT terms, it means that your go-forward plans always include a quick escape hatch if there’s some problem. I like Subbu Allamaraju’s description of this as Change Agility.  I’ve also seen this called lock-in prevention or contingency planning. Both are important; however, we’re reaching new levels for 2017 because we can’t predict which technology stacks are robust and complete.

The fact is the none of them are robust or complete compared to historical platforms. So we go forward with an eye on alternatives.

How did we get to this state? I blame the 2016 Infrastructure Revolt.

Way, way, way back in 2010 (that’s about bronze age in the Cloud era), we started talking about developers helping automate infrastructure as part of deploying their code. We created some great tools for this and co-opted the term DevOps to describe provisioning automation. Compared to the part, it was glorious with glittering self-service rebellions and API-driven enlightenment.

In reality, DevOps was really painful because most developers felt that time fixing infrastructure was a distraction from coding features.

In 2016, we finally reached a sufficient platform capability set in tools like CI/CD pipelines, Docker Containers, Kubernetes, Serverless/Lambda and others that Developers had real alternatives to dealing with infrastructure directly. Once we reached this tipping point, the idea of coding against infrastructure directly become unattractive. In fact, the world’s largest infrastructure company, Amazon, is actively repositioning as a platform services company. Their re:Invent message was very clear: if you want to get the most from AWS, use our services instead of the servers.

For most users, using platform services instead of infrastructure is excellent advice to save cost and time.

The dilemma is that platforms are still evolving rapidly. So rapidly that adopters cannot count of the services to exist in their current form for multiple generations. However, the real benefits drive aggressive adoption. They also drive the rise of Crawfish IT.

As they say in N’Awlins, laissez les bon temps rouler!

Related Reading on the Doppler: Your Cloud Strategy Must Include No-Cloud Options


Please stop the turtles! Underlay is it’s own thing.

DISCLAIMER: “Abstractions are helpful till they are not” rant about using the right tools for the job follows…


Turtle Stacking From Dr Seuss’ Yertle The Turtle

I’ve been hearing the Hindu phrase “turtles all the way down” very often lately to describe the practice of using products to try and install themselves (my original posting attributed this to Dr Seuss) .  This seems especially true of the container platforms that use containers to install containers that manage the containers.  Yes, really – I don’t make this stuff up.


While I’m a HUGE fan of containers (RackN uses them like crazy with Digital Rebar), they do not magically solve operational issues like security, upgrade or networking.  In fact, they actually complicate operational concerns by creating additional segmentation.

Solving these issues requires building a robust, repeatable, and automated underlay.  That is a fundamentally different problem than managing containers or virtual machines.  Asking container or VM abstraction APIs to do underlay work breaks the purpose of the abstraction which is to hide complexity.

The lure of a universal abstraction, the proverbial “single pane of glass,” is the ultimate siren song that breeds turtle recursion. 

I’ve written about that on DevOps.com in a pair of articles: It’s Time to Slay the Universal Installer Unicorn and How the Lure of an ‘Easy Button’ Installer Traps Projects.  It seems obvious to me that universal abstraction is a oxymoron.

Another form of this pattern emerges from the square peg / round hole syndrome when we take a great tool and apply it to every job.  For example, I was in a meeting when I heard “If you don’t think Kubernetes is greatest way to deploy software then go away [because we’re using it to install Kubernetes].”  It may be the greatest way to deploy software for applications that fit its model, but it’s certainly not the only way.

What’s the solution?  We should accept that there are multiple right ways to manage platforms depending on the level of abstraction that we want to expose.

Using an abstraction in the wrong place, hides information that we need to make good decisions.  That makes it harder to automate, monitor and manage.  It’s always faster, easier and safer when you’ve got the right tool for the job.

Can we control Hype & Over-Vendoring?

Q: Is over-vendoring when you’ve had to much to drink?
A: Yes, too much Kool Aid.

There’s a lot of information here – skip to the bottom if you want to see my recommendation.

Last week on TheNewStack, I offered eight ways to keep Kubernetes on the right track (abridged list here) and felt that item #6 needed more explanation and some concrete solutions.

  1. DO: Focus on a Tight Core
  2. DO: Build a Diverse Community
  3. DO: Multi-cloud and Hybrid
  4. DO: Be Humble and Honest
  5. AVOID: “The One Ring” Universal Solution Hubris
  6. AVOID: Over-Vendoring (discussed here)
  7. AVOID: Coupling Installers, Brokers and Providers to the core
  8. AVOID: Fast Release Cycles without LTS Releases

kool-aid-manWhat is Over-Vendoring?  It’s when vendors’ drive their companies’ brands ahead of the health of the project.  Generally by driving an aggressive hype cycle where vendors are trying to jump on the hype bandwagon.

Hype can be very dangerous for projects (David Cassel’s TNS article) because it is easy to bypass the user needs and boring scale/stabilization processes to focus on vendor differentiation.  Unfortunately, common use-cases do not drive differentiation and are invisible when it comes to company marketing budgets.  That boring common core has the effect creating tragedy of the commons which undermines collaboration on shared code bases.

The solution is to aggressively keep the project core small so that vendors have specific and limited areas of coopetition.  

A small core means we do not compel collaboration in many areas of project.  This drives competition and diversity that can be confusing.  The temptation to endorse or nominate companion projects is risky due to the hype cycle.  Endorsements can create a bias that actually hurts innovation because early or loud vendors do not generally create the best long term approaches.  I’ve heard this described as “people doing the real work don’t necessarily have time to brag about it.”

Keeping a small core mantra drives a healthy plug-in model where vendors can differentiate.  It also ensures that projects can succeed with a bounded set of core contributors and support infrastructure.  That means that we should not measure success by commits, committers or lines of code because these will drop as projects successfully modularize.  My recommendation for a key success metric is to the ratio of committers to ecosystem members and users.

Tracking improving ratio of core to ecosystem shows that improving efficiency of investment.  That’s a better sign of health than project growth.

It’s important to note that there is also a serious risk of under-vendoring too!  

We must recognize and support vendors in open source communities because they sustain the project via direct contributions and bringing users.  For a healthy ecosystem, we need to ensure that vendors can fairly profit.  That means they must be able to use their brand in combination with the project’s brand.  Apache Project is the anti-pattern because they have very strict “no vendor” trademark marketing guidelines that can strand projects without good corporate support.

I’ve come to believe that it’s important to allow vendors to market open source projects brands; however, they also need to have some limits on how they position the project.

How should this co-branding work?  My thinking is that vendor claims about a project should be managed in a consistent and common way.  Since we’re keeping the project core small, that should help limit the scope of the claims.  Vendors that want to make ecosystem claims should be given clear spaces for marketing their own brand in participation with the project brand.

I don’t pretend that this is easy!  Vendor marketing is planned quarters ahead of when open source projects are ready for them: that’s part of what feeds the hype cycle. That means that projects will be saying no to some free marketing from their ecosystem.  Ideally, we’re saying yes to the right parts at the same time.

Ultimately, hype control means saying no to free marketing.  For an open source project, that’s a hard but essential decision.