GCP

GCP services DevOps engineers rely on

I have spent the better part of three years wrestling with Google Cloud Platform, and I am still not entirely convinced it wasn’t designed by a group of very clever people who occasionally enjoy a quiet laugh at the rest of us. The thing about GCP, you see, is that it works beautifully right up until the moment it doesn’t. Then it fails with such spectacular and Byzantine complexity that you find yourself questioning not just your career choices but the fundamental nature of causality itself.

My first encounter with Cloud Build was typical of this experience. I had been tasked with setting up a CI/CD pipeline for a microservices architecture, which is the modern equivalent of being told to build a Swiss watch while someone steadily drops marbles on your head. Jenkins had been our previous solution, a venerable old thing that huffed and puffed like a steam locomotive and required more maintenance than a Victorian greenhouse. Cloud Build promised to handle everything serverlessly, which is a word that sounds like it ought to mean something, but in practice simply indicates you won’t know where your code is running and you certainly won’t be able to SSH into it when things go wrong.

The miracle, when it arrived, was decidedly understated. I pushed some poorly written Go code to a repository and watched as Cloud Build sprang into life like a sleeper agent receiving instructions. It ran my tests, built a container, scanned it for vulnerabilities, and pushed it to storage. The whole process took four minutes and cost less than a cup of tea. I sat there in my home office, the triumph slowly dawning, feeling rather like a man who has accidentally trained his cat to make coffee. I had done almost nothing, yet everything had happened. This is the essential GCP magic, and it is deeply unnerving.

The vulnerability scanner is particularly wonderful in that quietly horrifying way. It examines your containers and produces a list of everything that could possibly go wrong, like a pilot’s pre-flight checklist written by a paranoid witchfinder general. On one memorable occasion, it flagged a critical vulnerability in a library I wasn’t even aware we were using. It turned out to be nested seven dependencies deep, like a Russian doll of potential misery. Fixing it required updating something else, which broke something else, which eventually led me to discover that our entire authentication layer was held together by a library last maintained in 2018 by someone who had subsequently moved to a commune in Oregon. The scanner was right, of course. It always is. It is the most anxious and accurate employee you will ever meet.

Google Kubernetes Engine or how I learned to stop worrying and love the cluster

If Cloud Build is the efficient butler, GKE is the robot overlord you find yourself oddly grateful to. My initial experience with Kubernetes was self-managed, which taught me many things, primarily that I do not have the temperament to manage Kubernetes. I spent weeks tuning etcd, debugging network overlays, and developing what I can only describe as a personal relationship with a persistent volume that refused to mount. It was less a technical exercise and more a form of digitally enhanced psychotherapy.

GKE’s Autopilot mode sidesteps all this by simply making the nodes disappear. You do not manage nodes. You do not upgrade nodes. You do not even, strictly speaking, know where the nodes are. They exist in the same conceptual space as socks that vanish from laundry cycles. You request resources, and they materialise, like summoning a very specific and obliging genie. The first time I enabled Autopilot, I felt I was cheating somehow, as if I had been given the answers to an exam I had not revised for.

The real genius is Workload Identity, a feature that allows pods to access Google services without storing secrets. Before this, secret management was a dark art involving base64 encoding and whispered incantations. We kept our API keys in Kubernetes secrets, which is rather like keeping your house keys under the doormat and hoping burglars are too polite to look there. Workload Identity removes all this by using magic, or possibly certificates, which are essentially the same thing in cloud computing. I demonstrated it to our security team, and their reaction was instructive. They smiled, which security people never do, and then they asked me to prove it was actually secure, which took another three days and several diagrams involving stick figures.

Istio integration completes the picture, though calling it integration suggests a gentle handshake when it is more like being embraced by a very enthusiastic octopus. It gives you observability, security, and traffic management at the cost of considerable complexity and a mild feeling that you have lost control of your own architecture. Our first Istio deployment doubled our pod count and introduced latency that made our application feel like it was wading through treacle. Tuning it took weeks and required someone with a master’s degree in distributed systems and the patience of a saint. When it finally worked, it was magnificent. Requests flowed like water, security policies enforced themselves with silent efficiency, and I felt like a man who had tamed a tiger through sheer persistence and a lot of treats.

Cloud Deploy and the gentle art of not breaking everything

Progressive delivery sounds like something a management consultant would propose during a particularly expensive lunch, but Cloud Deploy makes it almost sensible. The service orchestrates rollouts across environments with strategies like canary and blue-green, which are named after birds and colours because naming things is hard, and DevOps engineers have a certain whimsical desperation about them.

My first successful canary deployment felt like performing surgery on a patient who was also the anaesthetist. We routed 5 percent of traffic to the new version and watched our metrics like nervous parents at a school play. When errors spiked, I expected a frantic rollback procedure involving SSH and tarballs. Instead, I clicked a button, and everything reverted in thirty seconds. The old version simply reappeared, fully formed, like a magic trick performed by someone who actually understands magic. I walked around the office for the rest of the day with what my colleagues described as a smug grin, though I prefer to think of it as the justified expression of someone who has witnessed a minor miracle.

The integration with Cloud Build creates a pipeline so smooth it is almost suspicious. Code commits trigger builds, builds trigger deployments, deployments trigger monitoring alerts, and alerts trigger automated rollbacks. It is a closed loop, a perpetual motion machine of software delivery. I once watched this entire chain execute while I was making a sandwich. By the time I had finished my ham and pickle on rye, a critical bug had been introduced, detected, and removed from production without any human intervention. I was simultaneously impressed and vaguely concerned about my own obsolescence.

Artifact Registry where containers go to mature

Storing artifacts used to involve a self-hosted Nexus repository that required weekly sacrifices of disk space and RAM. Artifact Registry is Google’s answer to this, a fully managed service that stores Docker images, Helm charts, and language packages with the solemnity of a wine cellar for code.

The vulnerability scanning here is particularly thorough, examining every layer of your container with the obsessive attention of someone who alphabetises their spice rack. It once flagged a high-severity issue in a base image we had been using for six months. The vulnerability allowed arbitrary code execution, which is the digital equivalent of leaving your front door open with a sign saying “Free laptops inside.” We had to rebuild and redeploy forty services in two days. The scanner, naturally, had known about this all along but had been politely waiting for us to notice.

Geo-replication is another feature that seems obvious until you need it. Our New Zealand team was pulling images from a European registry, which meant every deployment involved sending gigabytes of data halfway around the world. This worked about as well as shouting instructions across a rugby field during a storm. Moving to a regional registry in New Zealand cut our deployment times by half and our egress fees by a third. It also taught me that cloud networking operates on principles that are part physics, part economics, and part black magic.

Cloud Operations Suite or how I learned to love the machine that watches me

Observability in GCP is orchestrated by the Cloud Operations Suite, formerly known as Stackdriver. The rebranding was presumably because Stackdriver sounded too much like a dating app for developers, which is a missed opportunity if you ask me.

The suite unifies logs, metrics, traces, and dashboards into a single interface that is both comprehensive and bewildering. The first time I opened Cloud Monitoring, I was presented with more graphs than a hedge fund’s annual report. CPU, memory, network throughput, disk IOPS, custom metrics, uptime checks, and SLO burn rates. It was beautiful and terrifying, like watching the inner workings of a living organism that you have created but do not fully understand.

Setting up SLOs felt like writing a promise to my future self. “I, a DevOps engineer of sound mind, do hereby commit to maintaining 99.9 percent availability.” The system then watches your service like a particularly judgmental deity and alerts you the moment you transgress. I once received a burn rate alert at 2 AM because a pod had been slightly slow for ten minutes. I lay in bed, staring at my phone, wondering whether to fix it or simply accept that perfection was unattainable and go back to sleep. I fixed it, of course. We always do.

The integration with BigQuery for long-term analysis is where things get properly clever. We export all our logs and run SQL queries to find patterns. This is essentially data archaeology, sifting through digital sediment to understand why something broke three weeks ago. I discovered that our highest error rates always occurred on Tuesdays between 2 and 3 PM. Why? A scheduled job that had been deprecated but never removed, running on a server everyone had forgotten about. Finding it felt like discovering a Roman coin in your garden, exciting but also slightly embarrassing that you hadn’t noticed it before.

Cloud Monitoring and Logging the digital equivalent of a nervous system

Cloud Logging centralises petabytes of data from services that generate logs with the enthusiasm of a teenager documenting their lunch. Querying this data feels like using a search engine that actually works, which is disconcerting when you’re used to grep and prayer.

I once spent an afternoon tracking down a memory leak using Cloud Profiler, a service that shows you exactly where your code is being wasteful with RAM. It highlighted a function that was allocating memory like a government department allocates paper clips, with cheerful abandon and no regard for consequences. The function turned out to be logging entire database responses for debugging purposes, in production, for six months. We had archived more debug data than actual business data. The developer responsible, when confronted, simply shrugged and said it had seemed like a good idea at the time. This is the eternal DevOps tragedy. Everything seems like a good idea at the time.

Uptime checks are another small miracle. We have probes hitting our endpoints from locations around the world, like a global network of extremely polite bouncers constantly asking, “Are you open?” When Mumbai couldn’t reach our service but London could, it led us to discover a regional DNS issue that would have taken days to diagnose otherwise. The probes had saved us, and they had done so without complaining once, which is more than can be said for the on-call engineer who had to explain it to management at 6 AM.

Cloud Functions and Cloud Run, where code goes to hide

Serverless computing in GCP comes in two flavours. Cloud Functions are for small, event-driven scripts, like having a very eager intern who only works when you clap. Cloud Run is for containerised applications that scale to zero, which is an economical way of saying they disappear when nobody needs them and materialise when they do, like an introverted ghost.

I use Cloud Functions for automation tasks that would otherwise require cron jobs on a VM that someone has to maintain. One function resizes GKE clusters based on Cloud Monitoring alerts. When CPU utilisation exceeds 80 percent for five minutes, the function spins up additional nodes. When it drops below 20 percent, it scales down. This is brilliant until you realise you’ve created a feedback loop and the cluster is now oscillating between one node and one hundred nodes every ten minutes. Tuning the thresholds took longer than writing the function, which is the serverless way.

Cloud Run hosts our internal tools, the dashboards, and debug interfaces that developers need but nobody wants to provision infrastructure for. Deploying is gloriously simple. You push a container, it runs. The cold start time is sub-second, which means Google has solved a problem that Lambda users have been complaining about for years, presumably by bargaining with physics itself. I once deployed a debugging tool during an incident response. It was live before the engineer who requested it had finished describing what they needed. Their expression was that of someone who had asked for a coffee and been given a flying saucer.

Terraform and Cloud Deployment Manager arguing with machines about infrastructure

Infrastructure as Code is the principle that you should be able to rebuild your entire environment from a text file, which is lovely in theory and slightly terrifying in practice. Terraform, using the GCP provider, is the de facto standard. It is also a source of endless frustration and occasional joy.

The state file is the heart of the problem. It is a JSON representation of your infrastructure that Terraform keeps in Cloud Storage, and it is the single source of truth until someone deletes it by accident, at which point the truth becomes rather more philosophical. We lock the state during applies, which prevents conflicts but also means that if an apply hangs, everyone is blocked. I have spent afternoons staring at a terminal, watching Terraform ponder the nature of a load balancer, like a stoned philosophy student contemplating a spoon.

Deployment Manager is Google’s native IaC tool, which uses YAML and is therefore slightly less powerful but considerably easier to read. I use it for simple projects where Terraform would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if the sledgehammer required you to understand graph theory. The two tools coexist uneasily, like cats who tolerate each other for the sake of the humans.

Drift detection is where things get properly philosophical. Terraform tells you when reality has diverged from your code, which happens more often than you’d think. Someone clicks something in the console, a service account is modified, a firewall rule is added for “just a quick test.” The plan output shows these changes like a disappointed teacher marking homework in red pen. You can either apply the correction or accept that your infrastructure has developed a life of its own and is now making decisions independently. Sometimes I let the drift stand, just to see what happens. This is how accidents become features.

IAM and Cloud Asset Inventory, the endless game of who can do what

Identity and Access Management in GCP is both comprehensive and maddening. Every API call is authenticated and authorised, which is excellent for security but means you spend half your life granting permissions to service accounts. A service account, for the uninitiated, is a machine pretending to be a person so it can ask Google for things. They are like employees who never take a holiday but also never buy you a birthday card.

Workload Identity Federation allows these synthetic employees to impersonate each other across clouds, which is identity management crossed with method acting. We use it to let our AWS workloads access GCP resources, a process that feels rather like introducing two friends who are suspicious of each other and speak different languages. When it works, it is seamless. When it fails, the error messages are so cryptic they may as well be in Linear B.

Cloud Asset Inventory catalogs every resource in your organisation, which is invaluable for audits and deeply unsettling when you realise just how many things you’ve created and forgotten about. I once ran a report and discovered seventeen unused load balancers, three buckets full of logs from a project that ended in 2023, and a Cloud SQL instance that had been running for six months with no connections. The bill was modest, but the sense of waste was profound. I felt like a hoarder being confronted with their own clutter.

For European enterprises, the GDPR compliance features are critical. We export audit logs to BigQuery and run queries to prove data residency. The auditors, when they arrived, were suspicious of everything, which is their job. They asked for proof that data never left the europe-west3 region. I showed them VPC Service Controls, which are like digital border guards that shoot packets trying to cross geographical boundaries. They seemed satisfied, though one of them asked me to explain Kubernetes, and I saw his eyes glaze over in the first thirty seconds. Some concepts are simply too abstract for mortal minds.

Eventarc and Cloud Scheduler the nervous system of the cloud

Eventarc routes events from over 100 sources to your serverless functions, creating event-driven architectures that are both elegant and impossible to debug. An event is a notification that something happened, somewhere, and now something else should happen somewhere else. It is causality at a distance, action at a remove.

I have an Eventarc trigger that fires when a vulnerability is found, sending a message to Pub/Sub, which fans out to multiple subscribers. One subscriber posts to Slack, another creates a ticket, and a third quarantines the image. It is a beautiful, asynchronous ballet that I cannot fully trace. When it fails, it fails silently, like a mime having a heart attack. The dead-letter queue catches the casualties, which I check weekly like a coroner reviewing unexplained deaths.

Cloud Scheduler handles cron jobs, which are the digital equivalent of remembering to take the bins out. We have schedules that scale down non-production environments at night, saving money and carbon. I once set the timezone incorrectly and scaled down the production cluster at midday. The outage lasted three minutes, but the shame lasted considerably longer. The team now calls me “the scheduler whisperer,” which is not the compliment it sounds like.

The real power comes from chaining these services. A Monitoring alert triggers Eventarc, which invokes a Cloud Function, which checks something via Scheduler, which then triggers another function to remediate. It is a Rube Goldberg machine built of code, more complex than it needs to be, but weirdly satisfying when it works. I have built systems that heal themselves, which is either the pinnacle of DevOps achievement or the first step towards Skynet. I prefer to think it is the former.

The map we all pretend to understand

Every DevOps journey, no matter how anecdotal, eventually requires what consultants call a “high-level architecture overview” and what I call a desperate attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible. During my second year on GCP, I created exactly such a diagram to explain to our CFO why we were spending $47,000 a month on something called “Cross-Regional Egress.” The CFO remained unmoved, but the diagram became my Rosetta Stone for navigating the platform’s ten core services.

I’ve reproduced it here partly because I spent three entire afternoons aligning boxes in Lucidchart, and partly because even the most narrative-driven among us occasionally needs to see the forest’s edge while wandering through the trees. Consider it the technical appendix you can safely ignore, unless you’re the poor soul actually implementing any of this.

There it is, in all its tabular glory. Five rows that represent roughly fifteen thousand hours of human effort, and at least three separate incidents involving accidentally deleted production namespaces. The arrows are neat and tidy, which is more than can be said for any actual implementation.

I keep a laminated copy taped to my monitor, not because I consult it; I have the contents memorised, along with the scars that accompany each service, but because it serves as a reminder that even the most chaotic systems can be reduced to something that looks orderly on PowerPoint. The real magic lives in the gaps between those tidy boxes, where service accounts mysteriously expire, where network policies behave like quantum particles, and where the monthly bill arrives with numbers that seem generated by a random number generator with a grudge.

A modest proposal for surviving GCP

That table represents the map. What follows is the territory, with all its muddy bootprints and unexpected cliffs.

After three years, I have learned that the best DevOps engineers are not the ones with the most certificates. They are the ones who have learned to read the runes, who know which logs matter and which can be ignored, who have developed an intuitive sense for when a deployment is about to fail and can smell a misconfigured IAM binding at fifty paces. They are part sysadmin, part detective, part wizard.

The platform makes many things possible, but it does not make them easy. It is infrastructure for grown-ups, which is to say it trusts you to make expensive mistakes and learn from them. My advice is to start small, automate everything, and keep a sense of humour. You will need it the first time you accidentally delete a production bucket and discover that the undo button is marked “open a support ticket and wait.”

Store your manifests in Git and let Cloud Deploy handle the applying. Define SLOs and let the machines judge you. Tag resources for cost allocation and prepare to be horrified by the results. Replicate artifacts across regions because the internet is not as reliable as we pretend. And above all, remember that the cloud is not magic. It is simply other people’s computers running other people’s code, orchestrated by APIs that are occasionally documented and frequently misunderstood.

We build on these foundations because they let us move faster, scale further, and sleep slightly better at night, knowing that somewhere in a data centre in Belgium, a robot is watching our servers and will wake us only if things get truly interesting.

That is the theory, anyway. In practice, I still keep my phone on loud, just in case.

January 26, 2026 by Cloud stuff DevOps stuff Kubernetes SRE stuff

The slow unceremonious death of EC2 Autoscaling

Let’s pour one out for an old friend.

AWS recently announced a small, seemingly boring new feature for EC2 Auto Scaling: the ability to cancel a pending instance refresh. If you squinted, you might have missed it. It sounds like a minor quality-of-life update, something to make a sysadmin’s Tuesday slightly less terrible.

But this isn’t a feature. It’s a gold watch. It’s the pat on the back and the “thanks for your service” speech at the awkward retirement party.

The EC2 Auto Scaling Group (ASG), the bedrock of cloud elasticity, the one tool we all reflexively reached for, is being quietly put out to pasture.

No, AWS hasn’t officially killed it. You can still spin one up, just like you can still technically send a fax. AWS will happily support it. But its days as the default, go-to solution for modern workloads are decisively over. The battle for the future of scaling has ended, and the ASG wasn’t the winner. The new default is serverless containers, hyper-optimized Spot fleets, and platforms so abstract they’re practically invisible.

If you’re still building your infrastructure around the ASG, you’re building a brand-new house with plumbing from 1985. It’s time to talk about why our old friend is retiring and meet the eager new hires who are already measuring the drapes in its office.

So why is the ASG getting the boot?

We loved the ASG. It was a revolutionary idea. But like that one brilliant relative everyone dreads sitting next to at dinner, it was also exhausting. Its retirement was long overdue, and the reasons are the same frustrations we’ve all been quietly grumbling about into our coffee for years.

It promised automation but gave us chores

The ASG’s sales pitch was simple: “I’ll handle the scaling!” But that promise came with a three-page, fine-print addendum of chores.

It was the operational overhead that killed us. We were promised a self-driving car and ended up with a stick-shift that required constant, neurotic supervision. We became part-time Launch Template librarians, meticulously versioning every tiny change. We became health-check philosophers, endlessly debating the finer points of ELB vs. EC2 health checks.

And then… the Lifecycle Hooks.

A “Lifecycle Hook” is a polite, clinical term for a Rube Goldberg machine of desperation. It’s a panic button that triggers a Lambda, which calls a Systems Manager script, which sends a carrier pigeon to… maybe… drain a connection pool before the instance is ruthlessly terminated. Trying to debug one at 3 AM was a rite of passage, a surefire way to lose precious engineering time and a little bit of your soul.

It moves at a glacial pace

The second nail in the coffin was its speed. Or rather, the complete lack of it.

The ASG scales at the speed of a full VM boot. In our world of spiky, unpredictable traffic, that’s an eternity. It’s like pre-heating a giant, industrial pizza oven for 45 minutes just to toast a single slice of bread. By the time your new instance is booted, configured, service-discovered, and finally “InService,” the spike in traffic has already come and gone, leaving you with a bigger bill and a cohort of very annoyed users.

It’s an expensive insurance policy

The ASG model is fundamentally wasteful. You run a “warm” fleet, paying for idle capacity just in case you need it. It’s like paying rent on a 5-bedroom house for your family of three, just in case 30 cousins decide to visit unannounced.

This “scale-up” model was slow, and the “scale-down” was even worse, riddled with fears of terminating the wrong instance and triggering a cascading failure. We ended up over-provisioning to avoid the pain of scaling, which completely defeats the purpose of “auto-scaling.”

The eager interns taking over the desk

So, the ASG has cleared out its desk. Who’s moving in? It turns out there’s a whole line of replacements, each one leaner, faster, and blissfully unconcerned with managing a “fleet.”

1. The appliance Fargate and Cloud Run

First up is the “serverless container”. This is the hyper-efficient new hire who just says, “Give me the Dockerfile. I’ll handle the rest.”

With AWS Fargate or Google’s Cloud Run, you don’t have a fleet. You don’t manage VMs. You don’t patch operating systems. You don’t even think about an instance. You just define a task, give it some CPU and memory, and tell it how many copies you want. It scales from zero to a thousand in seconds.

This is the appliance model. When you buy a toaster, you don’t worry about wiring the heating elements or managing its power supply. You just put in bread and get toast. Fargate is the toaster. The ASG was the “build-your-own-toaster” kit that came with a 200-page manual on electrical engineering.

Just look at the cognitive load. This is what it takes to get a basic ASG running via the CLI:

# The "Old Way": Just one of the many steps...
aws autoscaling create-auto-scaling-group \
    --auto-scaling-group-name my-legacy-asg \
    --launch-template "LaunchTemplateName=my-launch-template,Version='1'" \
    --min-size 1 \
    --max-size 5 \
    --desired-capacity 2 \
    --vpc-zone-identifier "subnet-0571c54b67EXAMPLE,subnet-0c1f4e4776EXAMPLE" \
    --health-check-type ELB \
    --health-check-grace-period 300 \
    --tag "Key=Name,Value=My-ASG-Instance,PropagateAtLaunch=true"

You still need to define the launch template, the subnets, the load balancer, the health checks…

Now, here’s the core of a Fargate task definition. It’s just a simple JSON file:

// The "New Way": A snippet from a Fargate Task Definition
{
  "family": "my-modern-app",
  "containerDefinitions": [
    {
      "name": "my-container",
      "image": "nginx:latest",
      "cpu": 256,
      "memory": 512,
      "portMappings": [
        {
          "containerPort": 80,
          "hostPort": 80
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "requiresCompatibilities": ["FARGATE"],
  "cpu": "256",
  "memory": "512"
}

You define what you need, and the platform handles everything else.

2. The extreme couponer Spot fleets

For workloads that are less “instant spike” and more “giant batch job,” we have the “optimized fleet”. This is the high-stakes, high-reward world of Spot Instances.

Spot used to be terrifying. AWS could pull the plug with two minutes’ notice, and your entire workload would evaporate. But now, with Spot Fleets and diversification, it’s the smartest tool in the box. You can tell AWS, “I need 1,000 vCPUs, and I don’t care what instance types you give me, just find the cheapest ones.”

The platform then builds a diversified fleet for you across multiple instance types and Availability Zones, making it incredibly resilient to any single Spot pool termination. It’s perfect for data processing, CI/CD runners, and any batch job that can be interrupted and resumed. The ASG was always too rigid for this kind of dynamic, cost-driven scaling.

3. The paranoid security guard MicroVMs

Then there’s the truly weird stuff: Firecracker. This is the technology that powers AWS Lambda and Fargate. It’s a “MicroVM” that gives you the iron-clad security isolation of a full virtual machine but with the lightning-fast startup speed of a container.

We’re talking boot times of under 125 milliseconds. This is for when you need to run thousands of tiny, separate, untrusted workloads simultaneously without them ever being able to see each other. It’s the ultimate “multi-tenant” dream, giving every user their own tiny, disposable, fire-walled VM in the blink of an eye.

4. The invisible platform Edge runtimes

Finally, we have the platforms that are so abstract they’re “scaled to invisibility”. This is the world of Edge. Think Lambda@Edge or CloudFront Functions.

With these, you’re not even scaling in a region anymore. Your logic, your code, is automatically replicated and executed at hundreds of Points of Presence around the globe, as close to the end-user as possible. The entire concept of a “fleet” or “instance” just… disappears. The logic scales with the request.

Life after the funeral. How to adapt

Okay, the eulogy is over. The ASG is in its rocking chair on the porch. What does this mean for us, the builders? It’s time to sort through the old belongings and modernize the house.

Go full Marie Kondo on your architecture

First, you need to re-evaluate. Open up your AWS console and take a hard look at every single ASG you’re running. Be honest. Ask the tough questions:

  • Does this workload really need to be stateful?
  • Do I really need VM-level control, or am I just clinging to it for comfort?
  • Is this a stateless web app that I’ve just been too lazy to containerize?

If it doesn’t spark joy (or isn’t a snowflake legacy app that’s impossible to change), thank it for its service and plan its migration.

Stop shopping for engines, start shopping for cars

The most important shift is this: Pick the runtime, not the infrastructure.

For too long, our first question was, “What EC2 instance type do I need?” That’s the wrong question. That’s like trying to build a new car by starting at the hardware store to buy pistons.

The right question is, “What’s the best runtime for my workload?”

  • Is it a simple, event-driven piece of logic? That’s a Function (Lambda).
  • Is it a stateless web app in a container? That’s a Serverless Container (Fargate).
  • Is it a massive, interruptible batch job? That’s an Optimized Fleet (Spot).
  • Is it a cranky, stateful monolith that needs a pet VM? Only then do you fall back to an Instance (EC2, maybe even with an ASG).

Automate logic, not instance counts

Your job is no longer to be a VM mechanic. Your team’s skills need to shift. Stop manually tuning desired_capacity and start designing event-driven systems.

Focus on scaling logic, not servers. Your scaling trigger shouldn’t be “CPU is at 80%.” It should be “The SQS queue depth is greater than 100” or “API latency just breached 200ms”. Let the platform, be it Lambda, Fargate, or a KEDA-powered Kubernetes cluster, figure out how to add more processing power.

Was it really better in the old days?

Of course, this move to abstraction isn’t without trade-offs. We’re gaining a lot, but we’re also losing something.

The gain is obvious: We get our nights and weekends back. We get drastically reduced operational overhead, faster scaling, and for most stateless workloads, a much lower bill.

The loss is control. You can’t SSH into a Fargate container. You can’t run a custom kernel module on Lambda. For those few, truly special, high-customization legacy workloads, this is a dealbreaker. They will be the ASG’s loyal companions in the retirement home.

But for everything else? The ASG is a relic. It was a brilliant, necessary solution for the problems of 2010. But the problems of 2025 and beyond are different. The cloud has evolved to scale logic, functions, and containers, not just nodes.

The king isn’t just dead. The very concept of a throne has been replaced by a highly efficient, distributed, and slightly impersonal serverless committee. And frankly, it’s about time.

October 24, 2025 by Cloud stuff DevOps stuff SRE stuff

What replaces Transit Gateway on Google cloud

Spoiler: There is no single magic box. There is a tidy drawer of parts that click together so cleanly you stop missing the box.

The first time I asked a team to set up “Transit Gateway on Google Cloud,” I received the sort of polite silence you reserve for relatives who ask where you keep the fax machine. On AWS, you reach for Transit Gateway and call it a day. On Azure, you reach for Virtual WAN and its Virtual Hubs. On Google Cloud, you reach for… a shorter shopping list: one global VPC, Network Connectivity Center with VPC spokes when you need a hub, VPC Peering when you do not, Private Service Connect for producer‑consumer traffic, and Cloud Router to keep routes honest.

Once you stop searching for a product name and start wiring the right parts, transit on Google Cloud turns out to be pleasantly boring.

The short answer

  • Inter‑VPC at scale → Network Connectivity Center (NCC) with VPC spokes
  • One‑to‑one VPC connectivity → VPC Peering (non‑transitive)
  • Private access to managed or third‑party services → Private Service Connect (PSC)
  • Hybrid connectivity → Cloud Router + HA VPN or Interconnect with dynamic routing mode set to Global

That’s the toolkit most teams actually need. The rest of this piece is simply: where each part shines, where it bites, and how to string them together without leaving teeth marks.

How do the other clouds solve it?

  • AWS: VPCs are regional. Transit Gateway acts as the hub; if you span regions, you peer TGWs. It is a well‑lit path and a single product name.
  • Azure: VNets are regional. Virtual WAN gives you a global fabric with per‑region Virtual Hubs, optionally “secured” with an integrated firewall.
  • Google Cloud: a VPC is global (routing table and firewalls are global, subnets remain regional). You do not need a separate “global transit” box to make two instances in different regions talk. When you outgrow simple, add NCC with VPC spokes for hub‑and‑spoke, PSC for services, and Cloud Router for dynamic routing.

Different philosophies, same goal. Google Cloud leans into a global network and small, specialized parts.

What a global VPC really means

A Google Cloud VPC gives you a global control plane. You define routes and firewall rules once, and they apply across regions; you place subnets per region where compute lives. That split is why multi‑region feels natural on GCP without an extra transit layer. Not everything is magic, though:

  • Cloud Router, VPN, and Interconnect are regional attachments. You can and often should set dynamic routing mode to Global so learned routes propagate across the VPC, but the physical attachment still sits in a region.
  • Global does not mean chaotic. IAM, firewall rules, hierarchical policies, and VPC Service Controls provide the guardrails you actually want.

Choosing the right part

Network connectivity center with VPC spokes

Use it when you have many VPCs and want managed transit without building a mesh of N×N peerings. NCC gives you a hub‑and‑spoke model where spokes exchange routes through the hub, including hybrid spokes via Cloud Router. Think “default” once your VPC count creeps into the double digits.

Use when you need inter‑VPC transit at scale, clear centralization, and easy route propagation.

Avoid when you have only two or three VPCs that will never grow. Simpler is nicer.

VPC Peering

Use it for simple 1:1 connectivity. It is non‑transitive by design. If A peers with B and B peers with C, A does not automatically reach C. This is not a bug; it is a guardrail. If you catch yourself drawing triangles, take the hint and move to NCC.

Use when two VPCs need to talk, and that’s the end of the story.

Avoid when you need full‑mesh or centralized inspection.

Private Service Connect

Use it when a consumer VPC needs private access to a producer (managed Google service like Cloud SQL, or a third‑party/SaaS running behind a producer endpoint). PSC is not inter‑VPC transit; it is producer‑consumer plumbing with private IPs and tight control.

Use when you want “just the sauce” from a service without crossing the public internet.

Avoid when you are trying to stitch two application VPCs together. That is a job for NCC or peering.

Cloud Router with HA VPN or Interconnect

Use it for hybrid. Cloud Router speaks BGP and exchanges routes dynamically with your on‑prem or colo edge. Set dynamic routing to Global so routes learned in one region are known across the VPC. Remember that the attachments are regional; plan for redundancy per region.

Use when you want fewer static routes and less drift between environments.

Avoid when you expected a single global attachment. That is not how physics—or regions—work.

Three quick patterns

Multi‑region application in one VPC

One global VPC, regional subnets in us‑east1, europe‑west1, and asia‑east1. Instances talk across regions without extra kit. If the app grows into multiple VPCs per domain (core, data, edge), bring in NCC as the hub.

Mergers and acquisitions without a month of rewiring

Projects in Google Cloud are movable between folders and even organizations, subject to permissions and policy guardrails. That turns “lift and splice” into a routine operation rather than a quarter‑long saga. Be upfront about prerequisites: billing, liens, org policy, and compliance can slow a move; plan them, do not hand‑wave them.

Shared services with clean tenancy

Run shared services in a host project via Shared VPC. Attach service projects for each team. For an external partner, use VPC Peering or PSC, depending on whether they need network adjacency or just a service endpoint. If many internal VPCs need those shared bits, let NCC be the meeting place.

ASCII sketch of the hub

Pitfalls you can dodge

  • Expecting peering to be transitive. It is not. If your diagram starts to look like spaghetti, stop and bring in NCC.
  • Treating Cloud Router as global. It is regional. The routing mode can be Global; the attachment is not. Plan per‑region redundancy.
  • Using PSC as inter‑VPC glue. PSC is for producer‑consumer privacy, not general transit.
  • Forgetting DNS. Cross‑project and cross‑VPC name resolution needs deliberate configuration. Decide where you publish private zones and who can see them.
  • Over‑centralizing inspection. The global VPC makes central stacks attractive, but latency budgets are still a thing. Place controls where the traffic lives.

Security that scales with freedom

A global VPC does not mean a free‑for‑all. The security model leans on identity and context rather than IP folklore.

  • IAM everywhere for least privilege and clear ownership.
  • VPC firewall rules with hierarchical policy for the sharp edges.
  • VPC Service Controls for data perimeter around managed services.
  • Cloud Armor and load balancers at the edge, where they belong.

The result is a network that is permissive where it should be and stubborn where it must be.

A tiny buying guide for your brain

  • Two VPCs, done in a week → VPC Peering
  • Ten VPCs, many teams, add partners next quarter → NCC with VPC spokes
  • Just need private access to Cloud SQL or third‑party services → PSC
  • Datacenter plus cloud, please keep routing sane → Cloud Router with HA VPN or Interconnect, dynamic routing Global

If you pick the smallest thing that works today and the most boring thing that still works next year, you will almost always land on the right square.

Where the magic isn’t

Transit Gateway is a great product name. It just happens to be the wrong shopping query on Google Cloud. You are not assembling a monolith; you are pulling the right pieces from a drawer that has been neatly labeled for years. NCC connects the dots, Peering keeps simple things simple, PSC keeps services private, and Cloud Router shakes hands with the rest of your world. None of them is glamorous. All of them are boring in the way electricity is boring when it works.

If you insist on a single giant box, you will end up using it as a hammer. Google Cloud encourages a tidier vice: choose the smallest thing that does the job, then let the global VPC and dynamic routing do the quiet heavy lifting. Need many VPCs to talk without spaghetti? NCC with spokes. Need two VPCs and a quiet life? Peering. Need only the sauce from Cloud SQL or a partner? PSC. Need the campus to meet the cloud without sticky notes of static routes? Cloud Router with HA VPN or Interconnect. Label the bag, not every screw.

The punchline is disappointingly practical. When teams stop hunting for a product name, they start shipping features. Incidents fall in number and in temperature. The network diagram loses its baroque flourishes and starts looking like something you could explain before your coffee cools.

So yes, keep admiring Transit Gateway as a name. Then close the tab and open the drawer you already own. Put the parts back in the same place when you are done, teach the interns what each one is for, and get back to building the thing your users actually came for. The box you were searching for was never the point; the drawer is how you move faster without surprises.

October 7, 2025 by Cloud stuff

BigQuery learns to read between the lines

Keyword search is the friend who hears every word and misses the point. Vector search is the friend who nods, squints a little, and says, “You want a safe family SUV that will not make your wallet cry.” This story is about teaching BigQuery to be the second friend.

I wanted semantic search without renting another database, shipping nightly exports, or maintaining yet another dashboard only I remember to feed. The goal was simple and a little cheeky: keep the data in BigQuery, add embeddings with Vertex AI, create a vector index, and still use boring old SQL to filter by price and mileage. Results should read like good advice, not a word-count contest.

Below is a practical pattern that works well for catalogs, internal knowledge bases, and “please find me the thing I mean” situations. It is light on ceremony, honest about trade‑offs, and opinionated where it needs to be.

Why keyword search keeps missing the point

  • Humans ask for meanings, not tokens. “Family SUV that does not guzzle” is intent, not keywords.
  • Catalogs are messy. Price, mileage, features, and descriptions live in different columns and dialects.
  • Traditional search treats text like a bag of Scrabble tiles. Embeddings turn it into geometry where similar meanings sit near each other.

If you have ever typed “cheap laptop with decent battery” and received a gaming brick with neon lighting, you know the problem.

Keep data where it already lives

No new database. BigQuery already stores your rows, talks SQL, and now speaks vectors. The plan

  1. Build a clean content string per row so the model has a story to understand.
  2. Generate embeddings in BigQuery via a remote Vertex AI model.
  3. Store those vectors in a table and, when it makes sense, add a vector index.
  4. Search with a natural‑language query embedding and filter with plain SQL.

Map of the idea:

Prepare a clean narrative for each row

Your model will eat whatever you feed it. Feed it something tidy. The goal is a single content field with labeled parts, so the embedding has clues.

-- Demo names and values are fictitious
CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE demo_cars.search_base AS
SELECT
  listing_id,
  make,
  model,
  year,
  price_usd,
  mileage_km,
  body_type,
  fuel,
  features,
  CONCAT(
    'make=', make, ' | ',
    'model=', model, ' | ',
    'year=', CAST(year AS STRING), ' | ',
    'price_usd=', CAST(price_usd AS STRING), ' | ',
    'mileage_km=', CAST(mileage_km AS STRING), ' | ',
    'body=', body_type, ' | ',
    'fuel=', fuel, ' | ',
    'features=', ARRAY_TO_STRING(features, ', ')
  ) AS content
FROM demo_cars.listings
WHERE status = 'active';

Housekeeping that pays off

  • Normalize units and spellings early. “20k km” is cute; 20000 is useful.
  • Keep labels short and consistent. Your future self will thank you.
  • Avoid stuffing everything. Noise in, noise out.

Turn text into vectors without hand waving

We will assume you have a BigQuery remote model that points to your Vertex AI text‑embedding endpoint. Choose a modern embedding model and be explicit about task type, use RETRIEVAL_DOCUMENT for rows and RETRIEVAL_QUERY for user queries. That hint matters.

Embed the documents

-- Store document embeddings alongside your base table
CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE demo_cars.search_with_vec AS
SELECT
  b.listing_id,
  b.make, b.model, b.year, b.price_usd, b.mileage_km, b.body_type, b.fuel, b.features,
  e.ml_generate_embedding_result AS embedding
FROM demo_cars.search_base AS b,
UNNEST([
  STRUCT(
    (SELECT ml_generate_embedding_result
     FROM ML.GENERATE_EMBEDDING(
       MODEL `demo.embed_text`,
       (SELECT b.content AS content),
       STRUCT(TRUE AS flatten_json_output, 'RETRIEVAL_DOCUMENT' AS task_type)
     )) AS ml_generate_embedding_result
  )
]) AS e;

That cross join with a single STRUCT is a neat way to add one vector per row without creating a separate subquery table. If you prefer, materialize embeddings in a separate table and JOIN on listing_id to minimize churn.

Build an index when it helps and skip it when it does not

BigQuery can scan vectors without an index, which is fine for small tables and prototypes. For larger tables, add an IVF index with cosine distance.

-- Optional but recommended beyond a few thousand rows
CREATE VECTOR INDEX demo_cars.search_with_vec_idx
ON demo_cars.search_with_vec(embedding)
OPTIONS(
  distance_type = 'COSINE',
  index_type = 'IVF',
  ivf_options = '{"num_lists": 128}'
);

Rules of thumb

  • Start without an index for quick experiments. Add the index when latency or cost asks for it.
  • Tune num_lists only after measuring. Guessing is cardio for your CPU.

Ask in plain English, filter in plain SQL

Here is the heart of it. One short block that embeds the query, runs vector search, then applies filters your finance team actually understands.

-- Natural language wish
DECLARE user_query STRING DEFAULT 'family SUV with lane assist under 18000 USD';

WITH q AS (
  SELECT ml_generate_embedding_result AS qvec
  FROM ML.GENERATE_EMBEDDING(
    MODEL `demo.embed_text`,
    (SELECT user_query AS content),
    STRUCT(TRUE AS flatten_json_output, 'RETRIEVAL_QUERY' AS task_type)
  )
)
SELECT s.listing_id, s.make, s.model, s.year, s.price_usd, s.mileage_km, s.body_type
FROM VECTOR_SEARCH(
  TABLE demo_cars.search_with_vec, 'embedding',
  TABLE q, query_column_to_search => 'qvec',
  top_k => 20, distance_type => 'COSINE'
) AS s
WHERE s.price_usd <= 18000
  AND s.body_type = 'SUV'
ORDER BY s.price_usd ASC;

This is the “hybrid search” pattern, shoulder to shoulder, semantics finds plausible candidates, SQL draws the hard lines. You get relevance and guardrails.

Measure quality and cost without a research grant

You do not need a PhD rubric, just a habit.

Relevance sanity check

  • Write five real queries from your users. Note how many good hits appear in the top ten. If it is fewer than six, look at your content field. It is almost always the content.

Latency

  • Time the query with and without the vector index. Keep an eye on top‑k and filters. If you filter out 90% of candidates, you can often keep top‑k low.

Cost

  • Avoid regenerating embeddings. Upserts should only touch changed rows. Schedule small nightly or hourly batches, not heroic full refreshes.

Where things wobble and how to steady them

Vague user queries

  • Add example phrasing in your product UI. Even two placeholders nudge users into better intent.

Sparse or noisy text

  • Enrich your content with compact labels and the two or three features people actually ask for. Resist the urge to dump raw logs.

Synonyms of the trade

  • Lightweight mapping helps. If your users say “lane keeping” and your data says “lane assist,” consider normalizing in content.

Region mismatches

  • Keep your dataset, remote connection, and model in compatible regions. Latency enjoys proximity. Downtime enjoys misconfigurations.

Run it day after day without drama

A few operational notes that keep the lights on

  • Track changes by listing_id and only re‑embed those rows.
  • Rebuild or refresh the index on a schedule that fits your churn. Weekly is plenty for most catalogs.
  • Keep one “golden query set” around for spot checks after schema or model changes.

Takeaways you can tape to your monitor

  • Keep data in BigQuery and add meaning with embeddings.
  • Build one tidy content per row. Labels beat prose.
  • Use RETRIEVAL_DOCUMENT for rows and RETRIEVAL_QUERY for the user’s text.
  • Start without an index; add IVF with cosine when volume demands it.
  • Let vectors shortlist and let SQL make the final call.

Tiny bits you might want later

An alternative query that biases toward newer listings

DECLARE user_query STRING DEFAULT 'compact hybrid with good safety under 15000 USD';
WITH q AS (
  SELECT ml_generate_embedding_result AS qvec
  FROM ML.GENERATE_EMBEDDING(
    MODEL `demo.embed_text`,
    (SELECT user_query AS content),
    STRUCT(TRUE AS flatten_json_output, 'RETRIEVAL_QUERY' AS task_type)
  )
)
SELECT s.listing_id, s.make, s.model, s.year, s.price_usd
FROM VECTOR_SEARCH(
  TABLE demo_cars.search_with_vec, 'embedding',
  TABLE q, query_column_to_search => 'qvec',
  top_k => 15, distance_type => 'COSINE'
) AS s
WHERE s.price_usd <= 15000
ORDER BY s.year DESC, s.price_usd ASC
LIMIT 10;

Quick checklist before you ship

  • The remote model exists and is reachable from BigQuery.
  • Dataset and connection share a region you actually meant to use.
  • content strings are consistent and free of junk units.
  • Embeddings updated only for changed rows.
  • Vector index present on tables that need it and not on those that do not.

If keyword search is literal‑minded, this setup is the polite interpreter who knows what you meant, forgives your typos, and still respects the house rules. You keep your data in one place, you use one language to query it, and you get answers that feel like common sense rather than a thesaurus attack. That is the job.

September 27, 2025 by Cloud stuff

Choosing your message queue AWS SQS or GCP Pub/Sub

In the world of modern software, applications are rarely monolithic islands. Instead, they are bustling cities of interconnected services, each performing a specific job. For this city to function smoothly, its inhabitants, microservices, functions, and components need a reliable way to communicate without being directly tethered to one another. This is where message brokers come in, acting as the city’s postal service, ensuring that messages are delivered efficiently and reliably.

Two of the most prominent cloud-based postal services are Amazon Web Services’ Simple Queue Service (SQS) and Google Cloud’s Pub/Sub. Both are exceptional at what they do, but they operate on different philosophies. Understanding their unique characteristics is crucial for any cloud architect or DevOps engineer aiming to build robust, scalable, and event-driven systems. This guide will explore their differences to help you choose the right service for your application’s needs.

A quick look at our contenders

Before we examine the details, let’s get a general feel for each service.

AWS SQS is the seasoned veteran of message queuing. Think of it as a highly organized system of mailboxes. A service writes a letter (a message) and places it into a specific mailbox (a queue). The recipient service then comes to that mailbox and picks up its mail when it has the capacity to process it. It’s a straightforward, incredibly reliable system that has been battle-tested for years.

GCP Pub/Sub operates more like a global newspaper subscription. A publisher (your service) doesn’t send a message to a specific recipient. Instead, it publishes a message to a “topic,” like a news flash for the “user-signup” channel. Any service that has subscribed to that topic instantly receives a copy of the message. It’s designed for broad, real-time distribution of information on a global scale.

The delivery dilemma Push versus Pull

The most fundamental difference between SQS and Pub/Sub lies in how messages are delivered. This is often referred to as the “push vs. pull” model.

The pull model, which is SQS’s native approach, is like checking your P.O. box. The consumer application is responsible for periodically asking the queue, “Is there any mail for me?” This gives the consumer complete control over the rate of consumption. If it’s overwhelmed with work, it can slow down its requests or stop asking for new messages altogether. This is ideal for batch processing or any workload where you need to manage the processing pace carefully.

The push model, where Pub/Sub shines, is akin to home mail delivery. When a message is published, Pub/Sub actively “pushes” it to all subscribed endpoints, such as a serverless function or a webhook. The recipient doesn’t have to ask; the message just arrives. This is incredibly efficient for real-time notifications and event-driven workflows where immediate reaction is key. While Pub/Sub also supports a pull model, its architecture is optimized for push-based delivery.

Comparing key features

Let’s break down how these two services stack up in a few critical areas.

Message ordering

Sometimes, the sequence of events is just as important as the events themselves. For these cases, AWS SQS offers a specific FIFO (First-In, First-Out) queue type. This works exactly like a single-file line at a bank; the first person to get in line is the first one to be served. It provides a strict guarantee that messages will be processed in the exact order they were sent, which is critical for tasks like processing financial transactions or application logs.

GCP Pub/Sub, in contrast, does not have a dedicated FIFO queue type. Instead, it achieves partial ordering through the use of ordering keys. You can assign a key to messages (for example, a userId), and Pub/Sub will ensure that all messages with that specific key are delivered in order. However, it doesn’t guarantee order between different keys. To reuse the analogy, it’s less like a single line and more like a deli with separate ticket numbers for the butcher and the bakery. It keeps orders straight within each department, but not across the entire store.

Scale and reach

This is where their architectural differences become clear. SQS is a regional service. It’s incredibly scalable and resilient, but its scope is confined to a single AWS region.

Pub/Sub is inherently global. You publish a message once, and it can be delivered to subscribers in any region around the world with low latency. If your application has a global user base and you need to propagate events worldwide, Pub/Sub has a distinct advantage.

Message size and retention

Think of SQS as being for postcards and letters. It supports messages up to 256 KB. It can hold onto these messages for up to 14 days, giving your consumers plenty of time to process them.

Pub/Sub, on the other hand, can handle larger packages, with a maximum message size of 10 MB. However, its standard retention period is shorter, at 7 days.

Special delivery options

SQS has a native feature called Delay Queues. This allows you to postpone the delivery of a new message for up to 15 minutes. It’s like writing a post-dated check; the message sits in the queue but is invisible to consumers until the timer expires. This is useful for scheduling tasks without a complex scheduling service. Pub/Sub does not offer a similar built-in feature.

When to choose AWS SQS

SQS is your go-to choice when you need a dependable, orderly mailroom for your application. It excels in scenarios where:

  • Strict ordering is non-negotiable. For task sequencing or financial ledgers, SQS FIFO is the gold standard.
  • You need to control the pace of consumption. The pull model is perfect for decoupling a fast producer from a slower consumer or for batch processing jobs.
  • Task scheduling is required. The native delay queue feature is a simple yet powerful tool.
  • Your application’s architecture is primarily contained within a single AWS region.

When to choose GCP Pub/Sub

Pub/Sub is the right tool when you’re building a global broadcasting system or a highly reactive, event-driven platform. Consider it when:

  • You need to fan-out messages to many consumers. Pub/Sub’s topic-and-subscription model is designed for this.
  • Global distribution with low latency is a priority. Its global nature is a massive benefit for distributed systems.
  • You are sending large messages. The 10 MB limit offers much more flexibility than SQS.
  • A push-based model fits your architecture. It integrates seamlessly with serverless functions for instant, event-triggered execution.

A final word

So, after all this technical deliberation, which digital courier should you entrust with your precious data packets? The one that meticulously forms a single, orderly queue, or the one that shouts your message through a global megaphone to anyone who will listen?

The truth is, there’s no single “best” service. There’s only the one whose particular brand of crazy best matches your application’s personality. Is your app a stickler for the rules, demanding every event be processed in perfect sequence, lest it have a digital panic attack? Then the quiet, predictable, and slightly obsessive SQS is your soulmate. Or is your app more of a drama queen, needing to announce every minor update to the entire world, immediately? Then the boisterous, globe-trotting Pub/Sub is probably already sliding into your DMs.

Ultimately, the best way to choose is to put them to the test. Think of it as a job interview. Give them both a trial run with your actual workload and see which one handles the pressure with more grace, or at least breaks in a more interesting, less catastrophic way. Go on, do it for science. And for the future sanity of your on-call engineer.

July 6, 2025 by Cloud stuff

The strange world of serverless data processing made simple

Data isn’t just “big” anymore. It’s feral. It stampedes in from every direction, websites, mobile apps, a million sentient toasters, and it rarely arrives neatly packaged. It’s messy, chaotic, and stubbornly resistant to being neatly organized into rows for analysis. For years, taming this digital beast meant building vast, complicated corrals of servers, clusters, and configurations. It was a full-time job to keep the lights on, let alone do anything useful with the data itself.

Then, the cloud giants whispered a sweet promise in our ears: “serverless.” Let us handle the tedious infrastructure, they said. You just focus on the data. It sounds like magic, and sometimes it is. But it’s a specific kind of magic, with its own incantations and rules. Let’s explore the fundamental principles of this magic through Google Cloud’s Dataflow, and then see how its cousins at Amazon, AWS Glue and AWS Kinesis, perform similar tricks.

The anatomy of a data pipeline

No matter which magical cloud service you use, the core ritual is always the same. It’s a simple, three-step dance.

  1. Read: You grab your wild data from a source.
  2. Transform: You perform some arcane logic to clean, shape, enrich, or otherwise domesticate it.
  3. Write: You deposit the now-tamed data into a sink, like a database or data warehouse, where it can finally be useful.

This sequence is called a pipeline. In the serverless world, the pipeline is not a physical thing but a logical construct, a recipe that tells the cloud how to process your data.

Shaping the data clay

Once data enters a pipeline, it needs to be held in something. You can’t just let it slosh around. In Dataflow, data is scooped into a PCollection. The ‘P’ stands for ‘Parallel’, which is a hint that this collection is designed to be scattered across many machines and processed all at once. A key feature of a PCollection is that it’s immutable. When you apply a transformation, you don’t change the original collection; you create a brand-new one. It’s like a paranoid form of data alchemy where you never destroy your original ingredients.

Over in the AWS world, Glue prefers to work with DynamicFrames. Think of them as souped-up DataFrames from the Spark universe, built to handle the messy, semi-structured data that Glue often finds in the wild. Kinesis Data Analytics, being a specialist in fast-moving data, treats data as a continuous stream that you operate on as it flows by. The concept is the same, an in-memory representation of your data, but the name and nuances change depending on the ecosystem.

The art of transformation

A pipeline without transformations is just a very expensive copy-paste command. The real work happens here.

Dataflow uses the Apache Beam SDK, a powerful, open-source framework that lets you define your transformations in Java or Python. These operations are fittingly called Transforms. The beauty of Beam is its portability; you can write a Beam pipeline and, in theory, run it on other platforms (like Apache Flink or Spark) without a complete rewrite. It’s the “write once, run anywhere” dream, applied to data processing.

AWS Glue takes a more direct approach. You can write your transformations using Spark code (Python or Scala) or use Glue Studio, a visual interface that lets you build ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) jobs by dragging and dropping boxes. It’s less about portability and more about deep integration with the AWS ecosystem. Kinesis Data Analytics simplifies things even further for its real-time niche, letting you transform streams primarily through standard SQL queries or, for more complex tasks, by using the Apache Flink framework.

Running wild and scaling free

Here’s the serverless punchline: you define the pipeline, and the cloud runs it. You don’t provision servers, patch operating systems, or worry about cluster management.

When you launch a Dataflow job, Google Cloud automatically spins up a fleet of worker virtual machines to execute your pipeline. Its most celebrated trick is autoscaling. If a flood of data arrives, Dataflow automatically adds more workers. When the flood subsides, it sends them away. For streaming jobs, its Streaming Engine further refines this process, making scaling faster and more efficient.

AWS Glue and Kinesis Data Analytics operate on a similar principle, though with different acronyms. Glue jobs run on a pre-configured amount of “Data Processing Units” (DPUs), which it can autoscale. Kinesis applications run on “Kinesis Processing Units” (KPUs), which also scale based on throughput. The core benefit is identical across all three: you’re freed from the shackles of capacity planning.

Choosing your flow batch or stream

Not all data processing needs are created equal. Sometimes you need to process a massive, finite dataset, and other times you need to react to an endless flow of events.

  • Batch processing: This is like doing all your laundry at the end of the month. It’s perfect for generating daily reports, analyzing historical data, or running large-scale ETL jobs. Dataflow and AWS Glue are both excellent at batch processing.
  • Streaming processing: This is like washing each dish the moment you’re done with it. It’s essential for real-time dashboards, fraud detection, and feeding live data into AI models. Dataflow is a streaming powerhouse. Kinesis Data Analytics is a specialist, designed from the ground up exclusively for this kind of real-time work. While Glue has some streaming capabilities, they are typically geared towards continuous ETL rather than complex real-time analytics.

Picking your champion

So, which tool should you choose for your data-taming adventure? It’s less about which is “best” and more about which is right for your specific quest.

  • Choose Google Cloud Dataflow if you value portability. The Apache Beam model is a powerful abstraction that prevents vendor lock-in and is exceptionally good at handling both complex batch and streaming scenarios with a single programming model.
  • Choose AWS Glue if your world is already painted in AWS colors. Its primary strength is serverless ETL. It integrates seamlessly with the entire AWS data stack, from S3 data lakes to Redshift warehouses, making it the default choice for data preparation within that ecosystem.
  • Choose AWS Kinesis Data Analytics when your only concern is now. If you need to analyze, aggregate, and react to data in milliseconds or seconds, Kinesis is the sharp, specialized tool for the job.

The serverless horizon

Ultimately, these services represent a fundamental shift in how we approach data engineering. They allow us to move our focus away from the mundane mechanics of managing infrastructure and toward the far more interesting challenge of extracting value from data. Whether you’re using Dataflow, Glue, or Kinesis, you’re leveraging an incredible amount of abstracted complexity to build powerful, scalable, and resilient data solutions. The future of data processing isn’t about building bigger servers; it’s about writing smarter logic and letting the cloud handle the rest.

June 8, 2025 by Cloud stuff

AWS and GCP network security, an essential comparison

The digital world we’ve built in the cloud, brimming with applications and data, doesn’t just run on good intentions. It relies on robust, thoughtfully designed security. Protecting your workloads, whether a simple website or a sprawling enterprise system, isn’t just an add-on; it’s the bedrock. Both Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud (GCP) are titans in this space, and both are deeply committed to security. Yet, when it comes to managing the flow of network traffic, who gets in, who gets out, they approach the task with distinct philosophies and toolsets. This guide explores these differences, aiming to offer a clearer path as you navigate their distinct approaches to network protection.

Let’s set the scene with a familiar concept: securing a bustling apartment complex. AWS, in this scenario, provides a two-tier security system. You have vigilant guards stationed at the main entrance to the entire neighborhood (these are your Network ACLs), checking everyone coming and going from the broader area. Then, each individual apartment building within that neighborhood has its own dedicated doorman (your Security Groups), working from a specific guest list for that building alone.

GCP, on the other hand, operates more like a highly efficient central security office for the entire complex. They manage a master digital key system that controls access to every single apartment door (your VPC Firewall Rules). If your name isn’t on the approved list for Apartment 3B, you simply don’t get in. And to ensure overall order, the building management (think Hierarchical Firewall Policies) can also lay down some general community guidelines that apply to everyone.

The AWS approach, two levels of security

Venturing into the AWS ecosystem, you’ll encounter its distinct, layered strategy for network defense.

Security Groups, your instances personal guardian

First up are Security Groups. These act as the personal guardian for your individual resources, like your EC2 virtual servers or your RDS databases, operating right at their virtual doorstep.

A key characteristic of these guardians is that they are stateful. What does this mean in everyday terms? Picture a friendly doorman. If he sees you (your application) leave your apartment to run an errand (make an outbound connection), he’ll recognize you when you return and let you straight back in (allow the inbound response) without needing to re-check your credentials. It’s this “memory” of the connection that defines statefulness.

By default, a new Security Group is cautious: it won’t allow any unsolicited inbound traffic, but it’s quite permissive about outbound connections. Crucially, this doorman only works with “allow” lists. You provide a list of who is permitted; you don’t give them a separate list of who to explicitly turn away.

Network ACLs, the subnets border patrol

The second layer in AWS is the Network Access Control List, or NACL. This acts as the border patrol for an entire subnet, a segment of your network. Any resource residing within that subnet is subject to the NACL’s rules.

Unlike the doorman-like Security Group, the NACL border patrol is stateless. This means they have no memory of past interactions. Every packet of data, whether entering or leaving the subnet, is inspected against the rule list as if it’s the first time it’s been seen. Consequently, you must create explicit rules for both inbound traffic and outbound traffic, including any return traffic for connections initiated from within. If you allow a request out, you must also explicitly allow the expected response back in.

NACLs give you the power to create both “allow” and “deny” rules, and these rules are processed in numerical order, the lowest numbered rule that matches the traffic gets applied. The default NACL that comes with your AWS virtual network is initially wide open, allowing all traffic in and out. Customizing this is a key security step.

GCPs unified firewall strategy

Shifting our focus to Google Cloud, we find a more consolidated approach to network security, primarily orchestrated through its VPC Firewall Rules.

Centralized command VPC Firewall Rules

GCP largely centralizes its network traffic control into what it calls VPC (Virtual Private Cloud) Firewall Rules. This is your main toolkit for defining who can talk to whom. These rules are defined at the level of your entire VPC network, but here’s the important part: they are enforced right at each individual Virtual Machine (VM) instance. It’s like the central security office sets the master rules, but each VM’s own “door” (its network interface) is responsible for upholding them. This provides granular control without the explicit two-tier system seen in AWS.

Another point to note is that GCP’s VPC networks are global resources. This means a single VPC can span multiple geographic regions, and your firewall rules can be designed with this global reach in mind, or they can be tailored to specific regions or zones.

Decoding GCPs rulebook

Let’s look at the characteristics of these VPC Firewall Rules:

  • Stateful by default: Much like the AWS Security Group’s friendly doorman, GCP’s firewall rules are inherently stateful for allowed connections. If you permit an outbound connection from one of your VMs, the system intelligently allows the return traffic for that specific conversation.
  • The power of allow and deny: Here’s a significant distinction. GCP’s primary firewall system allows you to create both “allow” rules and explicit “deny” rules. This means you can use the same mechanism to say “you’re welcome” and “you’re definitely not welcome,” a capability that in AWS often requires using the stateless NACLs for explicit denies.
  • Priority is paramount: Every firewall rule in GCP has a numerical priority (lower numbers signify higher precedence). When network traffic arrives, GCP evaluates rules in order of this priority. The first rule whose criteria match the traffic determines the action (allow or deny). Think of it as a clearly ordered VIP list for your network access.
  • Targeting with precision: You don’t have to apply rules to every VM. You can pinpoint their application to:
    .- All instances within your VPC network.
    .- Instances tagged with specific Network Tags (e.g., applying a “web-server” tag to a group of VMs and crafting rules just for them).
    .- Instances running with particular Service Accounts.

Hierarchical policies, governance from above

Beyond the VPC-level rules, GCP offers Hierarchical Firewall Policies. These allow you to set broader security mandates at the Organization or Folder level within your GCP resource hierarchy. These top-level rules then cascade down, influencing or enforcing security postures across multiple projects and VPCs. It’s akin to the overall building management or a homeowners association setting some fundamental security standards that everyone in the complex must adhere to, regardless of their individual apartment’s specific lock settings.

AWS and GCP, how their philosophies differ

So, when you stand back, what are the core philosophical divergences?

AWS presents a distinctly layered security model. You have Security Groups acting as stateful firewalls directly attached to your instances, and then you have Network ACLs as a stateless, broader brush at the subnet boundary. This separation allows for independent configuration of these two layers.

GCP, in contrast, leans towards a more unified and centralized model with its VPC Firewall Rules. These rules are stateful by default (like Security Groups) but also incorporate the ability to explicitly deny traffic (a characteristic of NACLs). The enforcement is at the instance level, providing that fine granularity, but the rule definition and management feel more consolidated. The Hierarchical Policies then add a layer of overarching governance.

Essentially, GCP’s VPC Firewall Rules aim to provide the capabilities of both AWS Security Groups and some aspects of NACLs within a single, stateful framework.

Practical impacts, what this means for you

Understanding these architectural choices has real-world consequences for how you design and manage your network security.

  • Stateful deny is a GCP convenience: One notable practical difference is how you handle explicit “deny” scenarios. In GCP, creating a stateful “deny” rule is straightforward. If you want to block a specific group of VMs from making outbound connections on a particular port, you create a deny rule, and the stateful nature means you generally don’t have to worry about inadvertently blocking legitimate return traffic for other allowed connections. In AWS, achieving an explicit, targeted deny often involves using the stateless NACLs, which requires more careful management of return traffic.

A peek at default settings:

  • AWS: When you launch a new EC2 instance, its default Security Group typically blocks all incoming traffic (no uninvited guests) but allows all outgoing traffic (meaning your instance has the permission to reach out, and if it’s in a public subnet with a route to an Internet Gateway, it can indeed connect to the internet). The default NACL for your subnet, however, starts by allowing all traffic in and out. So, your instance’s “doorman” is initially strict, but the “neighborhood gate” is open.
  • GCP: A new GCP VPC network has implied rules: deny all incoming traffic and allow all outgoing traffic. However, if you use the “default” network that GCP often creates for new projects, it comes with some pre-populated permissive firewall rules, such as allowing SSH access from any IP address. It’s like your new apartment has a few general visitor passes already active; you’ll want to review these and decide if they fit your security posture. review these and decide if they fit your security posture.
  • Seeing the traffic flow logging and monitoring: Both platforms offer ways to see what your network guards are doing. AWS provides VPC Flow Logs, which can capture information about the IP traffic going to and from network interfaces in your VPC. GCP also has VPC Flow Logs, and importantly, its Firewall Rules Logging feature allows you to log when specific firewall rules are hit, giving you direct insight into which rules are allowing or denying traffic.

Real-world scenario blocking web access

Let’s make this concrete. Suppose you want to prevent a specific set of VMs from accessing external websites via HTTP (port 80) and HTTPS (port 443).

In GCP:

  1. You would create a single VPC Firewall Rule.
  2. Set its Direction to Egress (for outgoing traffic).
  3. Set the Action on match to Deny.
  4. For Targets, you’d specify your VMs, perhaps using a network tag like “no-web-access”.
  5. For Destination filters, you’d typically use 0.0.0.0/0 (to apply to all external destinations).
  6. For Protocols and ports, you’d list tcp:80 and tcp:443.
  7. You’d assign this rule a Priority that is numerically lower (meaning higher precedence) than any general “allow outbound” rules that might exist, ensuring this deny rule is evaluated first.

This approach is quite direct. The rule explicitly denies the specified outbound traffic for the targeted VMs, and GCP’s stateful handling simplifies things.

In AWS:

To achieve a similar explicit block, you would most likely turn to Network ACLs:

  1. You’d identify or create an NACL associated with the subnet(s) where your target EC2 instances reside.
  2. You would add outbound rules to this NACL to explicitly Deny traffic destined for TCP ports 80 and 443 from the source IP range of your instances (or 0.0.0.0/0 from those instances if they are NATed).
  3. Because NACLs are stateless, you’d also need to ensure your inbound NACL rules don’t inadvertently block legitimate return traffic for other connections if you’re not careful, though for an outbound deny, the primary concern is the outbound rule itself.

Alternatively, with Security Groups in AWS, you wouldn’t create an explicit “deny” rule. Instead, you would ensure that no outbound rule in any Security Group attached to those instances allows traffic on TCP ports 80 and 443 to 0.0.0.0/0. If there’s no “allow” rule, the traffic is implicitly denied by the Security Group. This is less of an explicit block and more of a “lack of permission.”

The AWS method, particularly if relying on NACLs for the explicit deny, often requires a bit more careful consideration of the stateless nature and rule ordering.

Charting your cloud security course

So, we’ve seen that AWS and GCP, while both aiming for robust network security, take different paths to get there. AWS offers a distinctly layered defense: Security Groups serve as your instance-specific, stateful guardians, while Network ACLs provide a broader, stateless patrol at your subnet borders. This gives you two independent levers to pull.

GCP, conversely, champions a more unified system with its VPC Firewall Rules. These are stateful, apply at the instance level, and critically, incorporate the ability to explicitly deny traffic, consolidating functionalities that are separate in AWS. The addition of Hierarchical Firewall Policies then allows for overarching governance.

Neither of these architectural philosophies is inherently superior. They represent different ways of thinking about the same fundamental challenge: controlling network traffic. The “best” approach is the one that aligns with your organization’s operational preferences, your team’s expertise, and the specific security requirements of your applications.

By understanding these core distinctions, the layers, the statefulness, and the locus of control, you’re better equipped. You’re not just choosing a cloud provider; you’re consciously architecting your digital defenses, rule by rule, ensuring your corner of the cloud remains secure and resilient.

May 25, 2025 by Cloud stuff DevOps stuff SRE stuff

Comparing permissions management in GCP and AWS

Cloud security forms the foundation of building and maintaining modern digital infrastructures. Central to this security is Identity and Access Management, commonly known as IAM. Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and Amazon Web Services (AWS), two leading cloud providers, handle IAM differently. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for architects and DevOps engineers aiming to create secure, flexible systems tailored to each provider’s capabilities.

IAM fundamentals in Google Cloud Platform

In GCP, permissions management is driven by roles and policies. Consider a role as a keychain, with each key representing a specific permission. A role groups these permissions, streamlining the management by enabling you to grant multiple permissions at once.

GCP assigns roles to identities called members, including individual users, user groups, and service accounts. Here’s a straightforward example:

You have a developer named Alex, who needs to manage compute resources. In GCP, you would assign the Compute Admin role directly to Alex’s Google account, granting all associated permissions instantly.

Here’s an example of a simple GCP IAM policy:

{
  "bindings": [
    {
      "role": "roles/compute.admin",
      "members": [
        "user:alex@example.com"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

IAM fundamentals in Amazon Web Services

AWS uses policies defined as detailed JSON documents explicitly stating allowed or denied actions. Think of an AWS policy as a clear instruction manual that specifies exactly which tasks are permissible.

AWS utilizes three primary IAM entities: users, groups, and roles. A significant difference is how AWS manages roles, which are assumed temporarily rather than permanently assigned.

AWS achieves temporary access through the Security Token Service (STS). For example:

A developer named Jamie temporarily requires access to AWS Lambda functions. Rather than granting permanent access, AWS issues temporary credentials through STS, allowing Jamie to assume a Lambda execution role that expires automatically after a set duration.

Here’s an example of an AWS IAM policy:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [
        "lambda:InvokeFunction"
      ],
      "Resource": "arn:aws:lambda:us-west-2:123456789012:function:my-function"
    }
  ]
}

Implementing temporary access in Google Cloud

Although GCP typically favors direct role assignments, it provides a similar capability to AWS’s temporary role assumption known as service account impersonation.

Service account impersonation in GCP allows temporary adoption of permissions associated with a service account, akin to borrowing someone else’s access badge briefly. This method provides temporary permissions without permanently altering the user’s existing access.

To illustrate clearly:

Emily needs temporary access to a storage bucket. Rather than assigning permanent permissions, Emily can impersonate a service account with those specific storage permissions. Once her task is complete, Emily automatically reverts to her original permission set.

While AWS’s STS and GCP’s impersonation achieve similar goals, their implementations differ notably in complexity and methodology.

Summary of differences

The primary distinction between GCP and AWS in managing permissions revolves around their approach to temporary versus permanent access:

  • GCP typically favors straightforward, persistent role assignments, enhanced by optional service account impersonation for temporary tasks.
  • AWS inherently integrates temporary credentials using its Security Token Service, embedding temporary role assumption deeply within its security framework.

Both systems are robust, and understanding their unique aspects is essential. Recognizing these IAM differences empowers architects and DevOps teams to optimize cloud security strategies, ensuring flexibility, robust security, and compliance specific to each cloud platform’s strengths.

May 22, 2025 by Cloud stuff DevOps stuff SRE stuff

The essentials of Cloud Native software development

Cloud native development is not just about moving applications to the cloud. It represents a shift in how software is designed, built, deployed, and operated. It enables systems to be more scalable, resilient, and adaptable to change, offering a competitive edge in a fast-evolving digital landscape.

This approach embraces the core principles of modern software engineering, making full use of the cloud’s dynamic nature. At its heart, cloud-native development combines containers, microservices, continuous delivery, and automated infrastructure management. The result is a system that is not only robust and responsive but also efficient and cost-effective.

Understanding the Cloud Native foundation

Cloud native applications are designed to run in the cloud from the ground up. They are built using microservices: small, independent components that perform specific functions and communicate through well-defined APIs. These components are packaged in containers, which make them portable across environments and consistent in behavior.

Unlike traditional monoliths, which can be rigid and hard to scale, microservices allow teams to build, test, and deploy independently. This improves agility, fault tolerance, and time to market.

Containers bring consistency and portability

Containers are lightweight units that package software along with its dependencies. They help developers avoid the classic “it works on my machine” problem, by ensuring that software runs the same way in development, testing, and production environments.

Tools like Docker and Podman, along with orchestration platforms like Kubernetes, have made container management scalable and repeatable. While Docker remains a popular choice, Podman is gaining traction for its daemonless architecture and enhanced security model, making it a compelling alternative for production environments. Kubernetes, for example, can automatically restart failed containers, balance traffic, and scale up services as demand grows.

Microservices enhance flexibility

Splitting an application into smaller services allows organizations to use different languages, frameworks, and teams for each component. This modularity leads to better scalability and more focused development.

Each microservice can evolve independently, deploy at its own pace, and scale based on specific usage patterns. This means resources are used more efficiently and updates can be rolled out with minimal risk.

Scalability meets demand dynamically

Cloud native systems are built to scale on demand. When user traffic increases, new instances of a service can spin up automatically. When demand drops, those resources can be released.

This elasticity reduces costs while maintaining performance. It also enables companies to handle unpredictable traffic spikes without overprovisioning infrastructure. Tools and services such as Auto Scaling Groups (ASG) in AWS, Virtual Machine Scale Sets (VMSS) in Azure, Horizontal Pod Autoscalers in Kubernetes, and Google Cloud’s Managed Instance Groups play a central role in enabling this dynamic scaling. They monitor resource usage and adjust capacity in real time, ensuring applications remain responsive while optimizing cost.

Automation and declarative APIs drive efficiency

One of the defining features of cloud native development is automation. With infrastructure as code and declarative APIs, teams can provision entire environments with a few lines of configuration.

These tools, such as Terraform, Pulumi, AWS CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager (ARM) templates, and Google Cloud Deployment Manager, Google Cloud Deployment Manager, reduce manual intervention, prevent configuration drift, and make environments reproducible. They also enable continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD), where new features and bug fixes are delivered faster and more reliably.

Advantages that go beyond technology

Adopting a cloud native approach brings organizational benefits as well:

  • Faster Time to Market: Teams can release features quickly thanks to independent deployments and automation.
  • Lower Operational Costs: Elastic infrastructure means you only pay for what you use.
  • Improved Reliability: Systems are designed to be resilient to failure and easy to recover.
  • Cross-Platform Portability: Containers allow applications to run anywhere with minimal changes.

A simple example with Kubernetes and Docker

Let’s say your team is building an online bookstore. Instead of creating a single large application, you break it into services: one for handling users, another for managing books, one for orders, and another for payments. Each of these runs in a separate container.

You deploy these containers using Kubernetes. When many users are browsing books, Kubernetes can automatically scale up the books service. If the orders service crashes, it is automatically restarted. And when traffic is low at night, unused services scale down, saving costs.

This modular, automated setup is the essence of cloud native development. It lets teams focus on delivering value, rather than managing infrastructure.

Cloud Native success

Cloud native is not a silver bullet, but it is a powerful model for building modern applications. It demands a cultural shift as much as a technological one. Teams must embrace continuous learning, collaboration, and automation.

Organizations that do so gain a significant edge, building software that is not only faster and cheaper, but also ready to adapt to the future.

If your team is beginning its journey toward cloud native, start small, experiment, and iterate. The cloud rewards those who learn quickly and adapt with confidence.

April 21, 2025 by Cloud stuff DevOps stuff SRE stuff

What are cloud operating systems?

You know your computer, right? That trusty machine, maybe running Windows, macOS, or perhaps a flavor of Linux like my buddy Fernando rocks with his Ubuntu setup. It has an Operating System. Its job? To manage the guts of that one machine, the processor, the memory, the storage, making sure your apps can run, your files are saved. It’s the conductor of a small, personal orchestra.

Now… zoom out. Way out.

Imagine not one computer but thousands. Tens of thousands. Maybe millions. Housed in colossal buildings we call data centers, spread across the globe, all interconnected. A sprawling, humming galaxy of computation.

How do you manage that? You can’t just install Windows on the entire internet! That’s like trying to run a city using the rules of a single household. It just doesn’t scale.

Meet the Cloud Operating System.

Now, hold on, don’t picture a single piece of software called “CloudOS” that you download. It’s more fundamental, more… cosmic in its scope. Think of it less as the OS on a single server in the cloud (that’s often still Linux or Windows), and more like the overarching intelligence, the distributed brain managing the entire fleet, the whole data center, maybe even multiple data centers as one cohesive entity.

What does this cosmic brain do? It performs a symphony of coordination on a scale that would make your desktop OS blush:

  1. It Abstracts the Hardware: It takes all those individual servers, storage racks, networking gear, the raw physical stuff, and throws a kind of “invisibility cloak” over it. It presents it all as a unified, seemingly infinite pool of resources. You ask for processing power, memory, storage, and the Cloud OS figures out where in that vast physical infrastructure to get it from, without you needing to know or care about the specific box. It’s like asking for “water” and the system handles whether it comes from this reservoir or that aquifer.
  2. It Orchestrates Resources: Need to spin up a thousand virtual servers for a massive calculation? Boom. The Cloud OS handles the provisioning, allocation, and networking. Need to automatically scale your website’s capacity because you just went viral? The Cloud OS is the maestro making that happen seamlessly. It’s the ultimate traffic controller, resource allocator, and taskmaster for the entire digital city.
  3. It Manages Virtualization: This is key. Cloud OSes are masters of virtualization, carving up physical machines into multiple virtual ones (VMs) or pooling resources to make many machines act as one giant one. It’s about turning rigid hardware into a flexible, fluid resource.
  4. It Provides Essential Services: Think scheduling (what runs where and when), storage management (replicating data for safety, moving it for speed), network management (directing traffic flow), fault tolerance (if one server fails, the system barely notices), and massive automation (because no army of humans could manage this manually).

So, can you point to one specific “Cloud Operating System”? Well, it’s complicated. The giants, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform, have built their own incredibly sophisticated, largely proprietary systems that act as the planet-scale operating systems for their clouds. Projects like OpenStack aim to provide an open-source framework to build this kind of cloud management system. And technologies like Kubernetes, while often called a “container orchestrator,” are essentially performing many of the distributed operating system functions at the application layer within the cloud.

Why is this disruptive? Because it fundamentally broke the old model of computing. We went from being limited by the box on our desk to tapping into near-limitless resources on demand. The Cloud OS is the unsung hero behind this revolution, the invisible intelligence weaving together the fabric of the modern digital world. It’s not just managing silicon and wires; it’s managing possibility on an unprecedented scale.

Think about that the next time you access a file from anywhere or watch a video streamed from the ether. You’re witnessing the silent, elegant dance orchestrated by a Cloud Operating System.

Hope that expands your view of the computational cosmos! Keep looking up… and into the cloud.

March 30, 2025 by Cloud stuff Computer Science stuff
NivelEpsilon
Exploring the Cloud: Insights into DevOps, Linux & Architectural Evolution