<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~files/feed-premium.xsl"?>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedpress="https://feed.press/xmlns" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <feedpress:locale>en</feedpress:locale>
    <atom:link rel="self" href="https://feeds.dzone.com/monitoring-and-observability"/>
    <atom:link rel="hub" href="https://feedpress.superfeedr.com/"/>
    <title>DZone Monitoring and Observability Zone</title>
    <link>https://dzone.com/monitoring-and-observability</link>
    <description>Recent posts in Monitoring and Observability on DZone.com</description>
    <item>
      <title>Why Ping-Based Uptime Checks Are Failing Modern SaaS Architectures</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17435726/ping-checks-modern-saas</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>In the early days of the web, monitoring availability was simple: a server either responded to a ping, or it didn't. HTTP checks tightened that up a little — a 200 OK meant the dashboard turned green, and everyone assumed things were fine.</p>
<p>That assumption doesn't really hold anymore, though. A modern app can return a picture-perfect 200 OK and still be completely unusable to an actual customer.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17435726.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3666444</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19155011&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Arun Kulkarni</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How to Monitor AI Models Without Drowning in Alerts</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433973/monitor-ai-models-alerts</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>When putting their model into production, every team or organization encounters the same issue. Failures go unnoticed for days at first because there is no monitoring. As teams begin to fix the issues, they identify areas where production results deviate from the training data, create dashboards for every metric, and set alerts for every threshold. This results in engineers being paged at two in the morning for a bug that fixes itself within an hour, and when an important alert arises, it goes unanswered due to alert fatigue, creating a pipeline that silently feeds garbage into the model.</p>
<p>When a team learns to disregard 95% of the issues, they are very likely to disregard the remaining 5% that are actually important, and the solution to this isn’t less monitoring. The good solution to this problem is <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/the-real-democratization-of-ai-and-why-it-has-to-b">monitoring</a>, which is tiered, routed, and pruned differently from the infrastructure monitoring that most teams already know.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433973.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 19:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665473</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19180720&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Aditya Shrivastava</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Deliberate Decoupling: 6 Architectural Patterns From a Regulated WAS-to-AWS Migration</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433880/regulated-was-aws-migration-patterns</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<h2>Key Takeaways</h2>
<ul>
 <li>In regulated industries, cloud migration success is determined less by technology selection and more by how deliberately you decouple risk vectors — compliance risk, organizational hesitation, user adoption gaps, and integration changes — so no single failure can derail the whole program.</li>
 <li>You can successfully migrate an application to AWS while keeping data on-premises by routing through a REST API abstraction (e.g., IBM’s DB2 REST API layer) paired with dedicated AWS security groups controlling cloud-to-on-prem traffic, allowing the data migration to proceed on its own compliance and trust-building timeline.</li>
 <li>The most dangerous compliance gap in regulated applications isn’t declared sensitive fields — it’s free-form text fields where users may inadvertently type SSNs, credit cards, or other regulated identifiers; proactive tokenization in the application’s write path closes this gap before any audit finds it.</li>
 <li>Long-tenured business users carry a decade of UX muscle memory that QA testing cannot replicate; allocating real production validation time (such as a 15-day dark deployment cohort) is essential when migrating systems users have relied on daily for 10+ years.</li>
 <li>Before starting a regulated cloud migration, ask which risk vector each architectural decision is decoupling and whether your team is aligned on why — this single question reframes "cloud migration" from a technology project into a coordinated risk-management exercise.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Most published writing on legacy-to-cloud migration treats it as a technical exercise: pick the stack, plan the cutover, flip the switch. In regulated industries, that framing fails — and the failure mode isn’t a missed deployment window. It’s a stalled program, a failed compliance audit, or a client who pulls back from the cloud strategy entirely.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/mastering-cloud-migration-best-practices-to-make-i">cloud migration</a> in healthcare insurance is as much about regulatory risk management, organizational trust-building, and user adoption as it is about microservices and Fargate. Get the technology right and miss the risk choreography, and the project doesn’t ship.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433880.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 16:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3663959</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19154959&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Alka Nimje</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Member Spotlight: Shamsher Khan</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433705/member-spotlight-shamsher-khan</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p data-end="1090" data-start="875">There’s always more to our contributors than what you see in their author profiles. For our latest Member Spotlight, I sat down with <strong>Shamsher Khan&nbsp;</strong>to learn more about his newest project. What started as a frustrating Kubernetes troubleshooting problem has since grown into published research, a new way of thinking about operational evidence, and ongoing open-source work.</p>
<p><strong>What first got you interested in digging into complex infrastructure and systems problems?</strong></p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433705.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 13:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3677660</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19170650&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Dominique Roller</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>How to Diagnose and Recover Stuck Temporal Workflows</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433098/diagnose-recover-temporal-workflows</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>A Temporal Workflow that appears stuck is rarely “stuck” in the conventional process sense. Temporal persists Workflow state through Event History and resumes execution through replay, so an open execution can remain healthy while waiting for a timer, Signal, Activity, or external condition. The operational problem is therefore not simply lack of completion; it is lack of expected progress.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Effective diagnosis starts by establishing what event should have happened next, why it did not happen, and whether remediation can preserve the Workflow’s business invariants. <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/temporal-workflow-guide-event-driven-applications">Temporal’s</a> history model makes that analysis unusually tractable because commands, task transitions, Activity attempts, failures, timers, and external interactions are durably represented as Events.&nbsp;</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17433098.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 17:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3669862</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19152377&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Akhil Madineni</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 2026 Observability Audit: Separating Single Vendor Silos From Community Innovation</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17430742/2026-observability-audit</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">Open source projects dominated by a single vendor are a hallmark of "open source in name only." Rather than filling the traditional role of open source fostering innovation and decision-making from a diverse community, "open source in name only" projects are often used as marketing tools for proprietary platforms. These projects are also seen as riskier than community-driven projects because a single vendor is more apt to abruptly terminate long-term support, restrict contributions, or switch from an open-source license to a more restrictive one (forcing some previous contributors to pay for the project they helped build).&nbsp;</p>
<p dir="ltr">In these projects, critics claim that investments are often lopsided and heavily skewed toward onboarding, marketing, and brand-related support. As a result, technical contributions are frequently less developed, opaque, undocumented, or lacking in real substance, often manifesting merely as a superficial "ease of entry and onboarding." Because of these underlying gaps in documentation and codebase depth, developers are routinely forced to reverse-engineer functionality simply to get the tools to work correctly.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17430742.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3673293</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19145240&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Chris Ward</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Multi-Account AWS Architecture: Isolating PHI Workloads Without Slowing Down Engineering Teams</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17427688/aws-phi-isolation</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">Most engineering teams working on healthtech applications reach a point where someone asks a question that sounds simple but isn't: How do we make sure a developer testing a new feature can't accidentally access production patient data?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The answer determines whether the architecture that follows will be auditable or not. Teams that answer it with process — "we have policies about that" — spend the next 18 months patching access-control gaps that reopen every time a new engineer joins or a new service gets wired in. Teams that answer it architecturally spend a week setting up AWS Organizations correctly and then largely stop thinking about it.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17427688.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3669741</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19149634&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Garik H</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Alert Fatigue as a System Design Problem: Engineering On-Call Reliability in Modern SRE Teams</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17425132/alert-fatigue-sre</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Once upon a time, site reliability engineering rested on a linear assumption: monitor more, detect early, and you’ll recover faster. The rise of alert fatigue makes modern SRE teams realize otherwise:</p>
<p>Ramadass's (2025) paper, <a href="https://al-kindipublishers.org/index.php/jcsts/article/download/10061/8745/27742" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Building an AI-Powered Observability Pipeline for Modern System Reliability</a>, cited research that discovered that:</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17425132.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 13:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3669969</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19135109&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Oreoluwa Omoike</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reliability Without Control: Operating SRE Practices in Platform–SaaS and API-Dependent Systems</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17424655/reliability-without-control-operating-sre-practice</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Originally, back-end and front-end <u><a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/"></a></u><a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/"></a><a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/">Site Reliability Engineering (SRE)</a><a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/"></a><u><a href="https://sre.google/sre-book/introduction/"></a></u> were owned by teams. They code the programs, set up databases and infrastructure, and quickly spring to action at the beep of any anomaly. The advent of code vs no-code infrastructure, SaaS, API dependencies, third parties, and other modern systems seems to be eroding this authority.</p>
<p>Mainstream and underdog companies now often leverage the significant advantages of outsourcing, collaboration, or delegation, which are usually accompanied by a silent clause: no or partial control.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17424655.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 19:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3669965</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19135067&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Oreoluwa Omoike</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AWS Bedrock vs Vertex AI vs Azure Foundry: Stop Comparing Benchmarks, Start Asking This Instead</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17424574/bedrock-vs-vertex-vs-foundry</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p data-sourcepos="3:1-3:559;80-638" dir="ltr">Every few weeks, someone on my team, or in a client meeting, asks me the same question: "Which cloud should we use for our AI workloads?" I have been building enterprise integrations for over fourteen years now, and lately most of my time goes into RAG pipelines, vector databases, and agentic orchestration on top of these platforms. So I get this question a lot, and honestly, there is no single right answer. The right cloud depends on where your data already lives, what your compliance team will accept, and which models your architecture actually needs.</p>
<p data-sourcepos="5:1-5:252;640-891" dir="ltr">In this article, I want to walk through the three big players, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, and Microsoft Azure AI Foundry, and share what I have learned working with these platforms in real enterprise settings, not just from reading marketing pages.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17424574.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 15:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3671140</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19144592&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Balaji Venkatasubramaniyar</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Building Data Pipelines: Here's What Palantir Foundry Did That Surprised Me.</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17422338/palantir-foundry-data-pipelines</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">Senior data engineers are trained to be skeptical of proprietary platforms. When I entered a Palantir Foundry training bootcamp, I expected to find a slow, expensive alternative to the mature tools I know on AWS and Azure. What I found instead was a platform built for a radically different user, one who cannot write <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/sql-database-schema-beginners-guide-with-examples" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">SQL</a> but needs answers now.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I want to write about what I actually observed honestly, including where I think the hype is justified and where I think it is not, because most Foundry content I have seen is either from Palantir's own marketing or from practitioners so embedded in the platform they have forgotten what it was like to come to it fresh. I am writing this while that perspective is still clear.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17422338.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 15:00:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665482</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19134801&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Sashank siwakoti</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>LocalStack and Terraform: A Clean Local AWS Setup Guide</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17417416/localstack-and-terraform</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>Running AWS resources locally is a game-changer for engineering velocity, cost optimization, and developer autonomy. Traditionally, testing cloud infrastructure required deploying directly to a staging or sandbox AWS account. This workflow introduced painful friction points: waiting for slow cloud provisioning cycles, tracking down orphaned resources that inflate the monthly bill, and requiring a constant, high-speed internet connection.</p>
<p><a href="https://app.localstack.cloud/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">LocalStack</a> solves this by emulating core AWS services, such as &nbsp;S3, SQS, DynamoDB, and other services directly on your local machine inside a Docker container. &nbsp;When paired with <a href="https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Terraform</a>, you can safely write, plan, and apply <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/what-is-infrastructure-as-code">infrastructure-as-code</a> (IaC) configuration blueprints against this local simulator.&nbsp;</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17417416.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 17:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3663862</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19134897&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Ammar Ekbote</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why AWS and Azure Handle Data Perimeter Differently</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17417290/aws-azure-data-perimeter</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><span data-contrast="auto" lang="EN-US">AWS can send audit logs to an attacker’s account unless denials are enforced at the network layer, while Azure doesn’t log network-block requests at all.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span data-contrast="auto" lang="EN-US">The concept of a data perimeter was popularized by </span><a href="https://dzone.com/articles/aws-basics"><span data-contrast="auto" lang="EN-US">AWS</span></a><span data-contrast="auto" lang="EN-US"> [1] to establish organizational boundaries around identities, resources, and networks. In simple terms, AWS provides access controls to ensure that trusted identities access trusted resources from expected networks while blocking all outside access.</span><span data-ccp-props="{}">&nbsp;</span></p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17417290.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 13:00:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3660944</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19133620&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Suresh Gururajan</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Incident Management and the Rise of AI SRE Agents</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17414860/ai-sre-agents</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p data-sourcepos="3:1-3:411;100-510" dir="ltr">Over the past year, I've been rebuilding parts of an incident response stack for a client, and the biggest surprise wasn't the AI features themselves. It was how much of the underlying workflow had to change to make those features useful. You can't just bolt an LLM onto a 2015-era ticketing tool and call it AIOps. The queue structure, the alert taxonomy, even the way runbooks are written all need to change.</p>
<p data-sourcepos="5:1-5:571;512-1082" dir="ltr">I've written before about the agent side of this shift, in <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/ai-agent-architectures-patterns-applications-guide">AI Agent Architectures: Patterns, Applications, and Implementation Guide</a> and <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/observability-and-devtool-platforms-for-ai-agents">Observability and DevTool Platforms for AI Agents</a>. This two-part series is the other side of that coin: what happens when you point those same agent patterns at your own production systems instead of at somebody else's AI application. Same reasoning loop, different target.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17414860.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3667222</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19127540&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Vidyasagar (Sarath Chandra) Machupalli FBCS</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Structured Logging in Distributed Systems: What Most Teams Get Wrong and How to Fix It</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17411654/structured-logging-in-distributed-systems</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">Logging is one of the oldest practices in software engineering, yet in distributed systems it remains one of the most poorly implemented. Most teams log, but very few log well. The gap between having logs and having useful logs becomes painfully visible the moment a production incident occurs at 2 AM across a system running dozens of microservices.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This article focuses on structured logging: what it is, where teams consistently go wrong with it, and the concrete practices that separate log data you can actually act on from log noise that burns engineering hours during incidents. If you are building or operating distributed systems today, structured logging is not optional. It is the foundation on which every other observability signal- traces, metrics, alerts- depends.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17411654.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2026 17:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665538</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19126021&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Ashwini Dave</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Building an Async Validation API With AWS Bedrock Agents and Serverless Architecture</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17403842/async-validation-api</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>As a data engineer, I’ve noticed business teams submitting intake forms, compliance documents, and project proposals that a tech team then manually validates against a set of predefined business rules stored in a database that gets updated quarterly. The time it takes to validate a single form is typically in the hours, and by the time you’ve validated the form, the submitter has moved on to other work.</p>
<p>When I needed to validate project intake forms against 60+ business rules of financial, compliance, and other types of business rules and guidelines (some of them to be used in a deterministic way and others to be used in a more nuanced manner), I knew that a simple if-else logic-based manual review process would not scale.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17403842.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665997</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19113847&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Rohit Nagpal</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Designing a Reliable Data Synchronization Layer: Idempotency, Ownership, and Observability</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17403423/data-sync-design</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p data-sourcepos="5:1-5:339;198-536" dir="ltr">In a lot of organizations, the real integration platform is a person. Someone exports orders from the ERP every morning and pastes them into the planning tool. Someone else re-types customer updates from the CRM into the invoicing system. It works until that person is on holiday or makes a typo in a price field or the volume doubles.</p>
<p data-sourcepos="7:1-7:445;538-982" dir="ltr">Replacing that manual work with a synchronization service sounds like a junior-level task: read from system A, write to system B, schedule it, done. In practice, sync services are where many integration projects quietly fail. They fail not because moving data is hard, but because the edge cases are partial failures, retries that duplicate records, two systems that both think they own a field, and errors that nobody notices for three weeks.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17403423.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 19:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3666594</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19111477&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Mike Beentjes</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>No Observability Tool Is the “Best”</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17402674/best-observability-tools</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.adatosystems.com/2025/03/04/otel-me-why/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Recently</a>, I made a comment about the idea of there being a “best” monitoring tool:</p>
<blockquote>
 <p>In fact, let’s get this out in the open: There simply isn’t a singular “best” monitoring tool out there any more than there’s one singular “best” programming language, or car model, or pizza style.* There isn’t a single tool which will cover 100% of your needs in every single use case.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17402674.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 19:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665030</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19086719&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Leon Adato</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Calling GCP From AWS Without Static Keys Using Open-Source MultiCloudJ</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17402418/cross-cloud-aws-to-gcp</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">In <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/zero-trust-multicloud-aws-gcp-without-static-keys" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Part 1</a>, we solved one direction of the multi-cloud connectivity problem: a workload running in Google Cloud interacting with an AWS cloud resource. A GKE pod read a Google-issued OIDC token from the metadata server, handed it to AWS STS via AssumeRoleWithWebIdentity, and received short-lived AWS credentials, with no static access keys stored anywhere. MultiCloudJ wrapped the token dance behind a portable client so the application code never touched a provider SDK directly.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This article covers the return trip: a workload running in AWS calling into <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/google-cloud-workstations">Google Cloud</a> — specifically, an Amazon EKS pod reading and writing a Google Cloud Storage (GCS) bucket — again with zero long-lived credentials.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17402418.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 12:00:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3665365</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19110329&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Sandeep Pal</dc:creator>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Deploying a Spring Boot Microservice on AWS Fargate: Lessons From the Outage That Forced Me to Get It Right</title>
      <link>https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17397448/spring-boot-aws-fargate</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>My first attempt to deploy a Spring Boot microservice on AWS Fargate didn’t fail loudly. It failed quietly — in a loop. ECS kept launching tasks, the Application Load Balancer kept marking them unhealthy, and the service never stabilized. The logs looked fine, the container looked fine, but the ALB replaced every task within seconds.</p>
<p>The root cause was painfully simple: <a href="https://dzone.com/articles/spring-h2-tutorial">Spring Boot</a> needed 45 seconds to start, and my ALB health‑check timeout was 5 seconds. The tasks never had a chance.</p><img src="https://feeds.dzone.com/link/23570/17397448.gif" height="1" width="1"/>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:00:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dzone.com/articles/3664376</guid>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://dz2cdn1.dzone.com/thumbnail?fid=19110267&amp;w=600"/>
      <dc:creator>Vishal Rameshchandra Shah</dc:creator>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
