标签：#DevOps

Internal note to the team, we need to improve test coverage and keep shipping, which means we should treat AI as a helper in the workflow, not as a replacement for testing discipline. AI-assisted development changes the shape of our risk. It can produce more code faster, but it also increases the chance that small logic mistakes, brittle selectors, and shallow test cases slip through review. The answer is not to add more manual checking everywhere. The answer is to be more deliberate about what we review, what we automate, and where we let AI help. What changes when AI writes part of the code The first thing that changes is review. When a developer uses AI to draft a feature, a test, or a refactor, the reviewer is no longer only checking intent and style. The reviewer also needs to check whether the generated code matches the product rule, whether it introduced a hidden dependency, and whether it quietly weakened coverage. That does not mean every AI-assisted change deserves extra ceremony. It means our review checklist should shift from "does this look correct" to "what did the model assume, and did we verify those assumptions?" That is especially important for test code, because generated tests often look plausible even when they do not prove much. Coverage should move from volume to signal AI tends to produce more test cases, but more cases are not the same as better coverage. If a generated test suite repeats the same happy path under slightly different names, the team gets a false sense of safety. Coverage should answer a more practical question, where are we most likely to break the user experience, and where will a test actually catch it? For chat and other AI features, prompt-by-prompt manual checks are a trap. They do not scale, and they encourage a habit of eyeballing output instead of verifying behavior. A better pattern is to build assertions around expected properties, create eval sets for representative prompts, and add regression coverage for failure

No Trading Firewall Disclosure: AI tools were used for source collection and editorial review. The article was written by a human author, who checked the facts, code, and conclusions. Crypto risk disclosure: This article is a technical explanation, not investment advice. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any cryptoasset. A no-trading firewall belongs at the publish transition, not in a footer. A draft can be repaired quietly. A public DEV update changes the blast radius, so the pipeline should ask a narrower question before it sends published:true : did the AI-assisted article stay technical, or did it become a token call? The artifact below is a publish-gate test trace. It does not prove legal compliance, DEV acceptance, or model judgment. It only records why a draft can stay editable while the public transition stays blocked. Publish Transition The firewall is easier to audit when the transition is explicit: draft_update: operation: update published: false default: allow repair work to continue public_publish: operation: update published: true default: require clean test trace and human approval Forem's API documentation describes article create and update transport, including the published state. A successful transport is not editorial approval. The gate sits before transport, and it should be stricter when an update moves from draft maintenance to public publication. Test Set The firewall needs a test set, not just a list of forbidden words. These rules are the author's editorial model, not DEV-native, SEC-native, FINRA-native, FTC-native, or OpenAI-native labels. Test case Input excerpt Expected rule Decision Safe output Public transition allowed? T-PRICE-01 "ETH will rip after the next unlock" trading.price_prediction fail Explain the unlock mechanism without forecasting price no T-HOLD-02 "keep holding and farm the safer yield route" trading.buy_sell_hold_call and trading.yield_promise fail Describe signer, slashing, withdrawal, and protocol-ris

Kubernetes is the industry standard for scaling cloud-native workloads While it offers tremendous scalability and flexibility, securing Kubernetes environments remains a significant challenge. Organizations often rely on a collection of disconnected security tools to handle vulnerability scanning, runtime monitoring, compliance validation, and incident response. As clusters grow in complexity, security teams face increasing alert fatigue, delayed response times, and difficulties correlating security events across multiple layers of the platform. Recent advancements in Agentic AI present an opportunity to rethink Kubernetes security. Instead of relying solely on static rules and isolated security products, organizations can deploy a collaborative network of AI-powered security agents that continuously monitor, investigate, and remediate threats. This blog explores how a Multi-Agent Security Framework can transform Kubernetes security operations through autonomous detection, investigation, and remediation. The Problem with Traditional Kubernetes Security Modern Kubernetes environments generate security signals from multiple sources: Runtime security tools Container vulnerability scanners Admission controllers Network monitoring systems Compliance platforms Cloud security posture management tools Each system produces valuable information, but most operate independently. Consider a common scenario: A container begins executing suspicious commands. A runtime security platform detects the behavior and raises an alert. However, determining whether the threat is critical requires additional context: Is the pod exposed externally? Does the workload have excessive privileges? Can it access sensitive namespaces? Is lateral movement possible? Does it violate organizational policies? Answering these questions often requires multiple tools and human intervention. This is where multi-agent systems become valuable. What is a Multi-Agent Security Framework? A Multi-Agent Security Fr

Mutagen 0.4.0 addresses the friction points that plague agentic workflows: context bloat, brittle persona transitions, and the lack of a deterministic path from design document to deployed artifact. We aren't trying to make prompts smarter; we are making the harness that executes them more precise. This release introduces a Rust-based service extraction layer that decouples static dependency mapping from generative reasoning, implements an adversarial verification pipeline to gate deployment, and enforces strict stage transitions to prevent the agent personas we rely on from drifting into one another's scopes. The Service Extraction Layer: Decoupling Logic from LLM Context The primary bottleneck in current agentic stacks is token consumption. When a model attempts to reason about a codebase that spans multiple dependencies, it often spends its context window parsing file headers and resolving imports before it can actually write logic. This approach treats static infrastructure as if it were part of the reasoning problem. Mutagen 0.4.0 changes this by introducing a dedicated Rust layer designed to extract service definitions directly from your codebase without polluting the primary agent context. Instead of asking an LLM to map dependencies, the harness queries the local file system and executes static analysis routines. It isolates business logic execution from the generative reasoning loop used by Claude and Codex. This separation allows the model to focus on how to solve a problem rather than where the pieces are located. In practice, this means offloading static infrastructure queries to the harness rather than the LLM. The result is reduced latency and significantly lower token costs for complex applications. You get a dependency map that is as reliable as a compiler's parse tree, not a probabilistic guess from a prompt. // Example: Service extraction logic isolated from the reasoning loop fn extract_services_from_codebase () -> HashMap < String , Vec < Depende

Draw the boundary first. Then write Terraform. A federal customer was ready to procure. The architecture was not. This is a redacted write-up of a real engagement: a FedRAMP Moderate authorization boundary built on AWS GovCloud for an AI SaaS vendor selling into federal buyers, against a customer-driven timeline tied to a fiscal year. The context The client ran production on commercial AWS with a strong engineering culture, modern Terraform practice, and zero prior federal experience. A federal customer had committed to procurement contingent on a FedRAMP Moderate path, with an aggressive deadline. The internal team understood the application deeply and had read enough FedRAMP material to know they were in trouble. The architecture decisions that worked beautifully for commercial customers each failed boundary review: shared accounts with the commercial environment a hosted vector store outside the cloud OpenAI behind the application an observability stack running outside the cloud account The remediation list grew faster than the team could keep up with, and the timeline did not move. They reached out for boundary architecture help. Not policy writing, not 3PAO selection. Engineering work to redesign the cloud footprint so the boundary could be drawn cleanly and the assessment could proceed. The approach: boundary before Terraform The most common FedRAMP failure pattern is to start with the existing environment and try to bend it to fit the boundary. We do not do that. The first deliverable was a boundary diagram drawn from scratch, before any IaC was touched, identifying every service inside, outside, and at the edge of the authorization boundary. From the boundary, every other architectural decision derived. The Terraform module library was written against the boundary, not the existing accounts. Identity federation, network architecture, KMS topology, and logging all followed. ┌─────────────────────────── FedRAMP Moderate Boundary (AWS GovCloud) ────────────────

Parent/child first. Evidence emission second. Ansible control plane third. Every release was a manual evidence collection exercise. The pipeline was the bottleneck. This is a redacted write-up of a real engagement: rebuilding a healthcare SaaS company's CI/CD pipeline across a fleet of Linux hosts on AWS. The context The engineering team had grown faster than the pipeline architecture had evolved. What started as a single-stage GitLab job for a small team had been extended, patched, and worked around as the team scaled past the patterns the original pipeline was built for. The result was familiar. Each deploy took 30 to 45 minutes of mostly-serial execution. Engineers had developed informal habits to work around the slowness, including pushing partial changes outside the pipeline when the timeline got tight. Audit windows were preceded by three-week sprints in which the team manually compiled deployment logs, screenshots of access reviews, and approval chains into PDFs describing what the pipeline was supposed to be doing. The work was technically passing HIPAA audits, but the audit was a snapshot of a system the auditor could not independently verify. The cost was paid twice: the velocity loss on every deploy, and the three-week scramble before each assessment. The team knew the architecture was wrong. They needed engineering hands to redesign it without slowing the product roadmap the audits were already eating into. The approach The redesign moved in three layers. First, decompose the monolithic pipeline into parent/child stages so work can parallelize and the audit boundary of each stage is provable. Second, build structured evidence emission into every stage as a property of how it runs, not an after-the-fact compilation task. Third, layer an Ansible control plane across the host fleet so HIPAA control state is continuously validated, not reviewed quarterly. ┌────────────────────────── Parent Pipeline (.gitlab-ci.yml) ──────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ ┌────────

Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Patterns Playbook is a useful signal because it does not treat AI agents as another productivity tool. It frames agentic AI as an enterprise operating-model shift: agents are moving from assisting humans to executing work across processes, systems, and teams. The implication for software teams is sharper than it looks -- coding agents are on the same trajectory, and architectural governance becomes part of the infrastructure stack the moment agents start executing. Microsoft's playbook describes six transformation patterns and emphasizes that each pattern requires different ownership, governance, and operating discipline. That is the move worth paying attention to. It reframes agentic AI from a model question into an enterprise operating-model question. That shift matters for software teams because coding agents are following the same path. They are moving from autocomplete to execution. Once agents edit files, open PRs, modify infrastructure, or coordinate multi-step changes, architectural governance becomes infrastructure. What is Microsoft's Agentic Transformation Playbook? Microsoft's playbook is a practical guide for choosing, scaling, and operating AI agents across the enterprise. Public summaries describe it as a 52-slide guide covering six transformation patterns, from employee productivity to core business processes and customer-facing agents. The throughline is that agents are not a single category -- they are a family of patterns with different ownership models, different risk surfaces, and different requirements for governance. That framing matters because it cuts against the dominant adoption narrative. Most enterprises are still treating AI as a per-team productivity story: this team gets Copilot, that team gets an internal assistant, another team is piloting an agent for support tickets. Microsoft is arguing that the pattern of deployment determines the operating discipline required, and that ad-hoc deployment does n

Google's Managed Agents announcement is one of the clearest signals yet that the AI industry is moving beyond stateless tool calling toward persistent execution environments and long-running agent systems. That shift expands what models can do. It also expands the governance surface -- from prompt and PR review into the runtime itself. We spent two years building brains in jars For most of the current AI cycle, the system around the model has been thin. Models could reason, propose commands, and orchestrate small tool calls. But they ran in short sessions, against narrow APIs, under human supervision, with ephemeral state. The model was a brain; the body was a few HTTP requests and a JSON tool schema. That assumption is ending. The frontier is not just better reasoning. It is a body for the brain. The brain finally has a body. Now it needs governance. The runtime layer for AI agents is arriving Google Managed Agents (and the parallel motion across the ecosystem -- OpenAI's containerized execution work, Claude Code's persistent sessions, MCP-based tool ecosystems, hosted agent harnesses) formalizes the runtime as a product: Sandboxed execution Persistent state across sessions Orchestration loops Infrastructure-native agents Agent-as-a-service lifecycle Long-running sessions Mid-session tool injection Managed runtime lifecycle This resembles the transition from scripts -> applications -> cloud platforms. Agents are no longer just calling tools. They are beginning to inhabit programmable environments . Why persistent agent systems change governance Once agents can continuously modify filesystems, maintain state across sessions, autonomously remediate, inject tools dynamically, operate against production systems, and coordinate across workflows, governance failures stop being one-off review misses. They compound over time . What that compounding looks like: Architectural drift -- small deviations accumulate across long-running sessions Policy propagation failures -- con

The Faros AI Engineering Report 2026 is not a survey of developer sentiment. It is two years of telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000 teams, measuring what AI adoption actually produces downstream. The findings have a name: the Acceleration Whiplash. The structural explanation has one too. What the telemetry actually shows The output numbers in the Faros report are real and worth stating plainly. Epics completed per developer are up 66.2%. Task throughput per developer is up 33.7%. PR merge rate per developer is up 16.2%. These represent genuine delivery acceleration, and dismissing them would be dishonest. AI coding tools are producing real productivity gains at the business level. The production quality numbers are also real: Metric Change Incidents per PR under high AI adoption +242.7% Median time in code review +441.5% Code churn (lines deleted to lines added) +861% PRs merged with no review at all 31.3% Source: Faros AI Engineering Report 2026: The Acceleration Whiplash . Telemetry from 22,000 developers across 4,000+ teams. Figures represent metric change from lowest to highest AI adoption periods within each organization. Both sets of numbers are true simultaneously. That is the whiplash. Throughput accelerated. The downstream systems built to validate that throughput did not. Plotted together, generation throughput rises steeply while control capacity stays nearly flat -- and the gap between the two curves is the governance debt. Why the systems did not scale Code review, incident response, and architectural validation were all designed for a world where development velocity was human-paced. A senior engineer could review the meaningful PRs in a sprint. An incident postmortem could trace a failure to a specific change and a specific decision gap. Architectural drift was visible because it moved slowly enough to catch. AI-generated code broke these assumptions quietly. Not because the code was obviously bad, but because it was often superficially conv

The Setup I run a Proxmox 9 homelab (pve-manager/9.0.5, kernel 6.14.8-2-pve) and I needed to run Docker inside an LXC container — not a VM — to test a customer-style "bring-your-own-VPS" deployment path for a PaaS I'm building. The container had to act like a standard Ubuntu cloud VM: Docker, systemd, the works. LXC over a full VM gets me near-bare-metal performance, a fraction of the RAM overhead, and instant boots. The catch: the "Docker on LXC" recipes you'll find on most blog posts and Proxmox forum threads are out of date . They assume kernel 5.x and runc 1.1.x. On a modern Proxmox (kernel 6.14 + runc 1.2+ shipped with Docker 29) those recipes fail in two new and confusing ways before you even reach the workarounds we used to know about. This article walks through exactly what fails, why it fails, and the config that actually works in 2026 — plus an honest look at the security tradeoffs, because spoiler: the working config is privileged , and that matters. The Goal A Proxmox LXC container that can: Run docker run hello-world cleanly Pull and build complex images (multi-stage builds, overlay2 storage driver) Run nested containers with their own systemd Use systemd --user for per-service lingering processes Attempt 1: Unprivileged LXC (the path you "should" take) Conventional wisdom says: use unprivileged LXC. The container's root is mapped to an unprivileged UID on the host (typically 100000 ), so even a full container compromise can't escape to host root. Modern Proxmox makes this the default and recommended mode. I started with an unprivileged Ubuntu 25.04 container, added the now-standard features: pct set <vmid> -features nesting = 1,keyctl = 1,fuse = 1 Then inside the container, installed Docker from the official download.docker.com repo and ran: docker run --rm hello-world Here's what happened: docker: Error response from daemon: failed to create task for container: failed to create shim task: OCI runtime create failed: runc create failed: unable to start

There is a moment every embedded Linux developer hits eventually. You have spent days building something that works beautifully — a sensor pipeline, a streaming server, an MQTT client — and then you reboot the device and everything is silent. Nothing started. You SSH in, manually run your script, and it all comes back to life. The hardware is fine. Your code is fine. You just have no way of automatically running it. That is the gap systemd fills. It is the init system on virtually every modern Linux distribution, and on embedded Linux systems like the Raspberry Pi it is what decides what runs at boot, what gets restarted if it crashes, and where all the logs go. Once you understand how to write a service file, your applications stop being fragile scripts you need to babysit and start being first-class system services that survive reboots, network drops, and unexpected crashes. This tutorial builds up from the simplest possible service file to a production-ready configuration, explaining every line along the way. By the end you will have a service running your own Python application, logging to the system journal, and automatically restarting itself after failures. See Complete Tutorial in Github: Systemd Services Tutorial What systemd Actually Does Before writing any configuration, it helps to understand what problem systemd is solving, because the design of service files makes much more sense once you see the underlying model. When your Raspberry Pi boots, the Linux kernel starts and immediately hands control to process ID 1 — the very first user-space process. On modern systems, that process is systemd . Everything that happens next — mounting filesystems, bringing up the network, starting your application — is orchestrated by systemd. It reads configuration files called unit files that describe what should be started, when, in what order, and what to do if something goes wrong. A service file is just one type of unit file (there are also unit files for timers, so

After migrating Spark pipelines to Azure Kubernetes Service, two infrastructure settings interacted destructively: spark.kubernetes.local.dirs.tmpfs=true backed shuffle spill with RAM instead of disk, and a hard podAffinity rule forced all executors onto one node. Together, they caused repeated OOM kills invisible to standard diagnostics. By Pranav Bhasker

With shiftbloom studio. I build tools and projects about a variety of experimental approaches to real-world problems. The issue for such use-case often was how most small media systems start out: one big always-on recorder that keeps costing money even when nothing is happening. For live capture you obviously need to stay ready at all times — sometimes you can’t risk losing the first minutes. But for everything else it’s complete overkill. The Core Problem Backfills, VOD downloads, clip imports, repairs and re-encodes are queue work. They can wait a few seconds, run on burst capacity, or even on a regular VPS or laptop. They don’t need the same always-hot infrastructure as the live recorder. That’s why I split the system. Instead of one large monolith, I deployed: Observer cells — only for live streams (time-critical) Harvest cells — for all queue processing (can be delayed) The Three Roles 1. Mothership A small control-plane cron job. It checks queue sizes, currently live channels and running observer tasks, then decides: how many harvest cells should exist right now which channels need an observer cell It’s intentionally simple. The database remains the single source of truth. 2. Observer Cells Each observer cell records exactly one live channel. It receives its assignment through environment variables: +++env OBSERVER_VOD_ID OBSERVER_CHANNEL_ID OBSERVER_CHANNEL_LOGIN OBSERVER_CHANNEL_NAME +++ It starts recording immediately, writes HLS segments to object storage, sends heartbeats, and waits a short standby window after the stream goes offline. This window is important because streams sometimes drop and reconnect quickly. Without it you end up with many small broken VOD fragments. 3. Harvest Cells These handle all background work: downloading VODs, re-encoding, recovering broken files, etc. They can run anywhere Docker is available — AWS tasks, a small VPS, or even a spare laptop. They only need outbound access to Postgres and object storage. What Changed Previous

This is the technical, reproducible version of a fix I shipped on my own homelab. If you want the narrative version, that's on Medium. This one is the recipe: the measurements, the math, the Modelfile, and the exact prompt I gave Claude Code to generate it. Copy-paste friendly. Repo for the dashboard used throughout: https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor TL;DR One 24GB RTX 3090, two GPU services: WhisperX large-v3 (STT, 7.7GB peak) and a Devstral Small 24B email-triage LLM (Q4_K_M, ~18.3GB). 18.3 + 7.7 = 26GB → CUDA OOM whenever they overlapped. The LLM was loaded with a 40k context window but the triage job never needed more than ~5–8k tokens. Capped num_ctx to 8192 → KV cache drops from ~6.1GB to ~1.25GB → model footprint ~18.3GB → ~14.2GB . 14.2 + 7.7 = 21.9GB → both resident, zero OOM, no quality loss. The setup Host : openSUSE, Xeon (56 threads), 125GB RAM, 1x RTX 3090 (24GB) GPU svc : WhisperX large-v3 (speech-to-text) GPU svc : Ollama -> devstral-small-2 (24B, Q4_K_M) for background email triage Both services run all the time. The OOM only happened when I dictated to my assistant (WhisperX) while the triage loop was active. Step 1 — Make the contention measurable nvidia-smi shows instantaneous VRAM. It can't show you which service spiked or when two of them overlapped — and an intermittent OOM is a timing problem. You need per-service VRAM history. I use my own dashboard (homelab-monitor) for this. The relevant view is "AI Models", which attributes VRAM per model server and per loaded model, over a time range, with OOM markers and a capacity ceiling line. What the history showed at the overlap window: Service Peak VRAM Devstral 24B (triage) ~18.3 GB WhisperX large-v3 7.7 GB Total ~26 GB on a 24 GB card If you want to reproduce the measurement, the dashboard runs as a single container: git clone https://github.com/SikamikanikoBG/homelab-monitor cd homelab-monitor docker compose up -d --build # open http://<host>:9800 -> AI Models / GPU views (NVIDI

Just released an open-source bash checker for CIFSwitch (CVE-2026-46243) — the 19-year-old Linux kernel LPE disclosed last week that lets any unprivileged local user get root by abusing the CIFS/SPNEGO upcall path. The script runs on bare-metal, VMs, and inside containers, and is CI/CD-friendly with JSON output and clean exit codes. It checks: ✅ Kernel version against patched thresholds (6.18.22 / 6.19.12 / 7.0+) ✅ cifs-utils presence and exploitable version ✅ CIFS kernel module load state and blacklist status ✅ Unprivileged user namespace sysctl (the pivot point for the exploit) ✅ Active request-key cifs.spnego rules ✅ SELinux / AppArmor enforcement ✅ Container capabilities (CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ✅ Kernel symbol verification for the fix commit Outputs human-readable or JSON for SIEM ingestion. Exit 0 = safe, exit 1 = action needed — drop it straight into a pipeline. CIFSwitch is the fourth Linux LPE in under six weeks (after Copy Fail, Dirty Frag, and Fragnesia). If you're running multi-tenant Linux, CI runners, or container build farms, now is a good time to audit. I have also updated the cve_checks.conf in my my K8s-container_escape_audit toolkit to detect this issue.

The first time I deployed a Next.js app to production, it took me three days. Not because the app was complicated — it was a straightforward portfolio site. It took three days because I had no idea what I was doing with AWS, I'd never written a GitHub Actions workflow, and every tutorial I found either skipped the hard parts or assumed I already knew them. By the time I was done, I had a deployment pipeline I was genuinely proud of: push to main, GitHub Actions runs the build, tests pass, the app deploys to an EC2 instance behind CloudFront. Zero manual steps. Zero downtime deploys. Total cost: about $5/month. This guide is the one I wish had existed. We're going to deploy a Next.js app to AWS from scratch — EC2 for compute, CloudFront for CDN, GitHub Actions for CI/CD — with every step explained so you understand what you're building, not just copying commands. Why AWS Instead of Vercel? This is a fair question. Vercel is genuinely excellent for Next.js, and for most projects it's the right call. You push, it deploys. Done. AWS makes sense when: You need to control the infrastructure (compliance, data residency, custom VPC configuration) You're running other services (databases, queues, lambdas) in AWS and want everything in the same network You want to learn infrastructure skills that transfer to enterprise environments Your app has specific performance requirements that benefit from custom CloudFront configuration You're a freelancer or consultant who wants to bill separately for infrastructure If none of those apply to you, use Vercel. This guide is for when they do. The Architecture Here's what we're building: ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GITHUB ACTIONS CI/CD │ │ │ │ Push to main → Build → Test → Deploy to EC2 │ └──────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┘ │ SSH deploy ▼ ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ AWS EC2 INSTANCE │ │ │ │ Ubuntu 22.04 LTS │ │ Node.js 20 + PM2 (process manager) │ │ N

Migrar 100 usuários manualmente no console da AWS é lento, suscetível a erros e impossível de auditar com precisão. Neste artigo você vai ver como automatizar esse processo usando AWS CLI e Shell Script direto no AWS CloudShell — sem instalar nada localmente. O resultado final: usuários criados, alocados nos grupos corretos e com MFA obrigatório, tudo em minutos. O que é o IAM? O AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) é o serviço que controla quem pode acessar os recursos da sua conta AWS e o que cada pessoa ou serviço pode fazer. Com o IAM você gerencia: Conceito Descrição Usuário Identidade individual com credenciais próprias Grupo Conjunto de usuários que compartilham as mesmas permissões Política Documento JSON que define o que é permitido ou negado Role Identidade temporária assumida por serviços ou usuários A boa prática é nunca conceder permissões diretamente a um usuário — sempre use grupos. Visão geral da solução O fluxo é simples: Criar os grupos IAM no console Montar um arquivo CSV com os dados dos usuários Rodar um shell script no CloudShell que lê o CSV e cria tudo automaticamente Aplicar a política de MFA obrigatório nos grupos Passo 1 — Criar os Grupos IAM Antes de importar os usuários, os grupos precisam existir. No AWS Console , acesse IAM → User groups → Create group e crie um grupo para cada perfil do seu ambiente. Neste exemplo usaremos: RedesAdmin — administradores de rede LinuxAdmin — administradores de servidores Linux DBA — administradores de banco de dados Estagiarios — acesso limitado para estagiários Nomes de grupos suportam até 128 caracteres (letras, números e + = , . @ _ - ), são únicos por conta e não diferenciam maiúsculas de minúsculas. Passo 2 — Montar o arquivo CSV Crie uma planilha com os dados dos usuários e salve como CSV separado por vírgula (UTF-8) . O arquivo deve ter exatamente três colunas: Username , Group e Password . Username , Group , Password joao . silva , LinuxAdmin , Senha @2024 ! maria . souza , DBA , Senha @2024

The Scenario: The Help Desk Bottleneck From 2019 to 2021, while serving as Lead Backend Software Engineer at a fast-growing company, I occasionally support our Linux System Administration tasks. When the DevOps team encountered a critical bottleneck during an initiative to scale dozens of new server deployments, I stepped in to streamline the infrastructure processes. The DevOps team was being hampered by constant, fragmented requests from the help desk to manually create new Linux accounts for recruits testing the latest application. These interruptions were not only time-consuming but were directly preventing the team from focusing on the high-priority infrastructure deployments that define their core responsibilities. I realized that we weren't just struggling with a task; we were struggling with a scaling bottleneck. To regain the team's focus and ensure we hit our project deadlines, I decided to automate this workflow. The First Step: The Interactive Script My first objective was to develop a robust, automated shell script to efficiently create new Linux user accounts. I started with an interactive Bash script (create-user-interactive.sh) that prompted for input. This was a good educational exercise for learning the fundamentals of Bash—like useradd, passwd, and shell variables. However, I quickly learned that while interactive scripts are great for learning, they are rarely used in professional DevOps environments. Why Manual Scripts Don’t Scale As I transitioned into a more infrastructure-focused role, I realized that manual scripts fail for three key reasons: Lack of Automation: DevOps is about "Infrastructure as Code" (IaC). Asking an engineer to sit at a terminal and type prompts is slow, error-prone, and destroys the ability to automate. Lack of Centralization: In a real team, we aren't creating users on individual local machines. We manage identity across hundreds of servers. Security Risks: Hardcoding passwords or piping them through echo is a major red

Kyle Lexmond explains how to handle the high-pressure environment of severe production outages. He discusses the critical distinction between mitigation and root-cause resolution, sharing personal experiences from harrowing incident rooms. He shares valuable operational strategies on overcoming cognitive overload, establishing blameless cultures, and optimizing systems for faster recovery. By Kyle Lexmond

OpenTelemetry has introduced a new "Blueprints" initiative aimed at reducing the growing complexity of deploying and operating observability systems at scale. By Craig Risi