找到 85 篇相关文章
AWS has outlined how ProGlove, an industrial-wearables manufacturer, was able to scale its SaaS platform to run more than one million AWS Lambda functions spread across thousands of dedicated customer accounts. By Matt Foster
Static analysis isn't just for application source code. Terraform, Pulumi, OpenTofu, and CloudFormation files are code too — and they get misconfigured just as often as a backend service. A public S3 bucket, a security group open to 0.0.0.0/0 , or an unencrypted RDS instance are all bugs you can catch before apply ever runs. TFSec is the tool most people reach for first, but it's not the only option on the OWASP Source Code Analysis Tools list . In this article I'll use Checkov , a free, open-source policy-as-code scanner built by Bridgecrew (now part of Palo Alto Networks), to scan a Terraform project end to end — from a local scan to a GitHub Actions gate that blocks merges on critical misconfigurations. The same approach works with OpenTofu and Pulumi projects too, since Checkov understands HCL directly and also has native support for Pulumi's rendered plan output and CloudFormation/ARM/Kubernetes manifests. Why Checkov? 100% open source (Apache 2.0), actively maintained, thousands of built-in policies. Understands Terraform, OpenTofu, CloudFormation, Kubernetes, Helm, Dockerfile, ARM, Serverless Framework, and Pulumi (via cdktf /synthesized plans) — one tool across most of your IaC surface. No account or API key required to run locally or in CI. Supports custom policies written in Python or YAML if the built-in rule set doesn't cover something specific to your org. ## 1. The sample infrastructure A small AWS setup with a few intentionally introduced misconfigurations — the kind that get merged during a rushed sprint: # main.tf provider "aws" { region = "us-east-1" } resource "aws_s3_bucket" "data" { bucket = "company-app-data-bucket" } # Vulnerable: bucket has no encryption, no versioning, and is publicly readable resource "aws_s3_bucket_acl" "data_acl" { bucket = aws_s3_bucket . data . id acl = "public-read" } resource "aws_security_group" "web" { name = "web-sg" description = "Allow web traffic" # Vulnerable: SSH open to the entire internet ingress { from_port
Vermilion Cliffs Ventures announced Wednesday the close of a $25 million Fund II.
Why Every Modern SaaS Needs a Billing Engine (Not Just a Payment Gateway) When building a SaaS product, API platform, AI application, or cloud service, most teams start by integrating a payment gateway like Stripe or Paystack. That solves one important problem: Collecting payments. But collecting payments and managing billing are two completely different challenges. As products grow, pricing becomes more sophisticated. Customers expect usage-based billing, flexible subscriptions, prepaid credits, seat-based pricing, tiered plans, and transparent invoices. Suddenly, the billing logic inside the application becomes one of the most complex parts of the entire system. This is why more engineering teams are separating payment processing from billing infrastructure . Payment Processing vs Billing Infrastructure A payment gateway is responsible for moving money. A billing platform is responsible for determining what should be charged, when it should be charged, and why it should be charged. Although these responsibilities often get grouped together, they solve very different problems. Payment providers typically handle: Payment authorization Card processing Refunds Payment retries Bank settlements Customer payment methods A billing engine manages: Usage metering Subscription billing Pricing rules Billing cycles Invoice generation Revenue analytics Customer usage tracking Payment orchestration Multi-gateway billing Proration Credits and quotas Keeping these responsibilities separate makes systems easier to maintain, easier to scale, and much more flexible when pricing changes. Why Billing Logic Doesn't Belong Inside Your Application Many engineering teams start with a simple subscription model. Then the business evolves. Suddenly the product needs to support: API usage billing AI token billing Storage billing Compute billing Per-seat pricing Hybrid subscriptions Enterprise contracts Prepaid credits The application slowly becomes filled with billing-specific code. Developers
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations are often presented as simple governance systems: token holders create proposals, vote, and execute decisions on-chain. In practice, building a production-grade DAO is far more difficult. A DAO is not only a smart contract. It is a distributed coordination system that combines governance logic, treasury security, token economics, identity, off-chain infrastructure, and human decision-making. A failure in any one of these layers can compromise the entire organization. Below are some of the most important technical problems DAO developers must solve. 1. Governance Attacks Through Borrowed Voting Power Many DAOs calculate voting power based on the number of governance tokens held at a specific moment. This creates a serious attack surface when tokens can be borrowed through lending protocols or flash loans. An attacker may temporarily acquire a large amount of voting power, submit or approve a malicious proposal, and return the borrowed assets shortly afterward. The standard defense is snapshot-based voting power. Instead of checking a user’s current balance, the governance contract reads historical balances from a previous block. function getVotes( address account, uint256 blockNumber ) public view returns (uint256) { return token.getPastVotes(account, blockNumber); } However, snapshots alone do not solve every problem. Developers should also consider proposal delays, minimum token-holding periods, quorum requirements, and vote-delegation risks. 2. Dangerous Proposal Execution The most sensitive part of a DAO is usually the executor. A successful proposal may call arbitrary contracts, transfer treasury assets, upgrade protocols, or change governance parameters. If proposal calldata is incorrectly validated, a governance action can execute unintended operations. A DAO should clearly separate: Proposal creation Voting Proposal queuing Timelock execution Emergency cancellation Using a timelock gives token holders and security teams
Introduction AI governance is often framed around risk, ethics, safety, and international cooperation. These are essential, but they are not sufficient. Governance only becomes real when countries have the computing infrastructure required to run, monitor, and maintain modern AI systems. Without compute, governance is theory. With compute, governance becomes capability. This article explores the missing execution layer in global AI governance — and why bridging the AI divide requires far more than policy alignment. The Hidden Dependency: Governance Assumes Infrastructure Most governance frameworks implicitly assume that nations already have: access to high performance compute reliable data pipelines secure storage operational tooling energy capacity connectivity skilled operators But this assumption is false for the majority of the world. The global AI divide is not primarily about access to models. It is about access to the infrastructure required to run them. Governance frameworks that ignore this reality risk becoming aspirational rather than actionable. The Execution Layer: Where Policy Meets Reality The execution layer is the part of AI governance that turns policy into practice. It includes: compute infrastructure data ingestion and processing pipelines monitoring and evaluation tooling human in the loop operational workflows maintenance and lifecycle management energy and cooling requirements secure deployment environments This layer is rarely discussed in governance conversations, yet it is the foundation upon which all responsible AI depends. Without an execution layer, governance collapses into paperwork. The Real Global Divide Isn’t About Models — It’s About Compute There is a persistent misconception that the AI divide is about access to large models. In reality, the divide is driven by: insufficient compute unreliable infrastructure lack of operational capacity limited data availability absence of secure environments dependency on external providers A c
In this episode, Alex Zenla (CTO/Co-founder, Edera) challenges the "laissez-faire" attitude toward modern infrastructure. She promotes "spite-driven development", building software to solve genuine technical pain points rather than passively accepting flawed abstractions, as a philosophy of improving the world of software. By Alex Zenla
In February, city officials in Cheyenne, Wyoming discovered something in their reclaimed water system that shouldn't have been there: Cupriavidus gilardii , a rare metal-resistant bacterium traced to wastewater discharges from Meta's $800 million data center campus. The contamination shut down Cheyenne's reuse water system for months , and on July 2, the city publicly named Meta's construction entity — a shell company called Goat Systems LLC — as the source. 📖 Read the full version with charts and embedded sources on ComputeLeap → "It's a very, very unpleasant surprise," said City Councilman Pete Laybourn. It shouldn't have been a surprise at all. Cheyenne is just the latest community learning what happens when AI's insatiable demand for compute meets the physical world: contaminated water, noise that residents describe as "living in hell," electricity bills that spike 267%, and — in the most surreal twist — a federal government that deleted its own energy conservation pages while a heatwave slammed the eastern seaboard. The AI industry talks endlessly about parameters, benchmarks, and scaling laws. But the story converging across Reddit, Hacker News, X, and YouTube this week isn't about models. It's about watts, gallons, and the communities living next to the machines. The water problem is worse than you think A Brookings Institution analysis puts the numbers in perspective: a typical data center consumes 300,000 gallons of water every day — equivalent to roughly 1,000 households. Large facilities gulp up to 5 million gallons daily, matching the needs of a town of 50,000. And water demand for data center cooling may rise by 870% as the current build-out continues. The scale is hard to overstate. According to a Consumer Reports investigation , Phoenix-area data centers currently use 385 million gallons annually — a figure projected to explode to 3.7 billion gallons once planned facilities come online. About two-thirds of data centers built since 2022 sit in water-st
Understanding the 550 SPF Check Failed Error The "550 SPF Check Failed" error indicates that a receiving mail server rejected an incoming email. This rejection occurs because the sender's domain failed its Sender Policy Framework (SPF) validation. SPF is an email authentication protocol defined in RFC 7208 . SPF helps prevent email spoofing. It allows domain owners to specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of their domain. Receiving mail servers perform an SPF check by querying the sender's DNS for an SPF TXT record. If the sending server's IP address is not listed in the domain's SPF record, the SPF check fails. The receiving server then rejects the email based on its configured policy, often resulting in a 550 error. This error protects recipients from unauthorized emails and enhances email security. Initial Diagnosis: Identifying the Root Cause Diagnosing an SPF failure requires examining the bounce message and the domain's DNS records. The bounce message often provides specific details about the SPF failure. Look for phrases like "SPF validation failed," "unauthorized sender," or "IP address not permitted." Common reasons for a 550 SPF Check Failed error include: Missing SPF Record: No SPF TXT record exists for the sending domain. Incorrect SPF Syntax: The SPF record contains errors, making it unreadable or invalid. Incomplete SPF Record: The SPF record does not list all legitimate sending IP addresses or hostnames. DNS Lookup Limit Exceeded: The SPF record requires more than 10 DNS lookups, violating RFC 7208. DMARC Policy Enforcement: A DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy ( RFC 7489 ) with p=reject or p=quarantine is in place, enforcing strict SPF failure handling. To begin diagnosis, use our SPF checker to verify your domain's SPF record and its validity. This tool quickly identifies syntax errors and lookup issues. Step-by-Step Troubleshooting and Resolution Resolving SPF failures involves
Introduction to DMARC and the p=quarantine Policy DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance), defined in RFC 7489 , is an email authentication protocol. It builds upon SPF and DKIM to provide domain owners with the ability to protect their domain from unauthorized use. DMARC enables senders to specify how receiving mail servers should handle unauthenticated emails originating from their domain. It also provides a mechanism for receiving servers to report back to the domain owner about authentication results. DMARC policies dictate the action receiving mail servers should take when an email fails DMARC authentication. The three primary policies are: p=none : Monitor mode. Receiving servers take no action on failed messages but send reports. This is the initial deployment phase. p=quarantine : Receiving servers should treat failed messages as suspicious. They are typically placed in the recipient's spam folder or flagged for further review. p=reject : Receiving servers should outright reject messages that fail DMARC authentication. This is the strongest enforcement policy. Implementing p=quarantine is a critical step towards full domain protection. It allows domain owners to mitigate spoofing and phishing attempts without immediately blocking legitimate, but misconfigured, email streams. This policy provides a balance between security enforcement and minimizing potential deliverability disruptions. Prerequisites for DMARC p=quarantine Implementation Before deploying a p=quarantine policy, proper configuration of SPF and DKIM is mandatory. DMARC relies on these underlying authentication mechanisms and their alignment with the sending domain. SPF (Sender Policy Framework) SPF, specified in RFC 7208 , allows domain owners to publish a list of authorized sending IP addresses in their DNS. Receiving mail servers check the SPF record to verify if an incoming email originated from an authorized server. An SPF record is a TXT record at the root of
Cycle recently introduced a separate EU-based control plane, allowing European customers to keep platform management data and telemetry within Europe. The new offering is designed to improve compliance, operational isolation, and responsiveness for European organizations. By Renato Losio
A company shifted from project- to product-thinking after their platform outgrew single-team use. The limitations that they felt with their platform were one-off deliveries, lack of product vision, and weak feedback loops. They have moved toward a self-service, API-driven, multi-tenant infrastructure with clearer ownership and better abstractions. By Ben Linders
The actor and investor is joining forces with Morgan Beller, who was previously a GP at NFX, to invest in early-stage startups.
The panelists explain the realities of running AI systems reliably at scale. While building models is solved, maintaining production databases under constant pressure is not. They discuss the emerging architectural decisions separating teams that scale gracefully from those facing catastrophic outages, and what engineering leaders must rethink today. By Simerus Mahesh, Alex Infanzon, Meryem Arik, Luca Bianchi, Renato Losio
If your Terraform plans are slow, your blast radius is too wide, or multiple teams are stepping on each other's changes, it's time to split your monolith. See The Problem with Large Terraform States for how to diagnose whether you've reached that point. This guide walks through the process of breaking a monolithic Terraform state into smaller, focused states — and how Snap CD can manage the dependencies between them so you don't have to. The approach 1. Identify natural boundaries Look at your resources and group them by lifecycle and ownership. Common boundaries: Networking — VPCs, subnets, route tables, NAT gateways. Changes rarely, underpins everything. DNS — Zones, records. Usually owned by a platform team. Compute — Kubernetes clusters, VM scale sets, container services. Changes more often, depends on networking. Application infrastructure — Databases, caches, queues, storage accounts. Owned by application teams. Monitoring — Dashboards, alerts, log sinks. Changes frequently, depends on everything but nothing depends on it. A useful test: if two resources would never be changed in the same PR by the same person, they probably belong in different states. 2. Map the dependencies Before you move anything, draw the dependency graph. Which groups produce values that other groups consume? networking dns │ ▲ ▼ │ compute ──────────►─┘ │ ▼ application │ ▼ monitoring The outputs that cross these boundaries are what you'll need to wire up after the split. Typical examples: Networking → Compute: vpc_id , private_subnet_ids Compute → DNS: load_balancer_ip Compute → Application: cluster_endpoint , cluster_ca_certificate Application → Monitoring: database_id , cache_name 3. Use terraform state mv to migrate resources Terraform's state mv command lets you move resources from one state to another without destroying and recreating them. # Initialize the destination state cd modules/networking terraform init # Move resources from the monolith to the new state terraform state mv \
At some point every growing Terraform project hits a wall. Plans that used to finish in seconds now take minutes. Applies feel risky because hundreds of resources share a single blast radius. Colleagues avoid running terraform plan because it hammers cloud APIs hard enough to trigger throttling. The state file itself becomes a liability — large, slow to lock, and one bad write away from corruption. This guide covers the symptoms of an oversized state, the band-aids teams reach for, and the structural fix that actually works. How Terraform state works under the hood Every terraform plan does two things: Refresh — for every resource in state, Terraform calls the provider's API to read the current real-world status. A state with 500 resources means 500+ API calls, often more when resources have nested data sources. Diff — compare the refreshed state against the desired configuration and produce a change set. The refresh phase is the bottleneck. It's sequential per provider (parallelism helps across providers, not within one), and every resource pays the cost whether you changed it or not. Adding ten resources to a 500-resource state doesn't make plans 2% slower — it makes the refresh 2% slower on every single plan, for every engineer, forever. Symptoms of a state that's too large Slow plans The most visible symptom. Plan time scales with resource count because every resource is refreshed on every plan, regardless of whether its configuration changed. The exact speed depends on provider — AWS resources with complex nested structures (IAM policies, security group rules) are slower to refresh than simple ones, and Azure resources that require multiple API calls per refresh are worse still. These aren't edge cases — users regularly report 2,900-resource states taking 20–25 minutes to plan and 1,600-resource states taking 8+ minutes . Even starting Terraform with a large state can take minutes before a single API call is made . There's a long-standing proposal for terraform
IndexCache: Killing the Indexer's O(NL²) Bottleneck in DeepSeek Sparse Attention Notes from my notebook on GLM-5.2 / DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA), reconstructed from the IndexCache paper (Bai, Dong et al., Tsinghua + Z.ai, 2026) — the mechanism behind GLM-5.2's "IndexShare." 1. Why this exists — the bottleneck nobody talks about DSA's whole pitch is: don't do full O(L²) attention, instead let a cheap lightning indexer look at all preceding tokens and pick the top-k (k=2048) that actually matter, then do real attention only on those. That drops core attention from O(L²) → O(Lk). Great — except I missed this the first time I read DSA: the indexer itself is still O(L²) . It has to score every preceding token against the query to decide who's in the top-k. So across N layers you've traded one O(L²) cost for N separate O(L²) costs — total O(NL²). At long context this indexer becomes the dominant cost, not the attention it was supposed to fix. Adding the indexer is "DSA on steroids" because it kills DSA's one real bottleneck (full attention) — but in doing so, it grows its own. The indexer is cheap per-FLOP (few heads, low-rank, FP8) but it still runs at every single layer. The fix the paper proposes isn't a smarter indexer — it's don't run it every layer at all. 2. The core insight: adjacent layers pick almost the same tokens If you measure pairwise overlap between the top-k token sets selected by each layer's indexer, adjacent layers share 70–100% of their picks. The heatmap even shows block structure — clusters of layers (e.g. layers 3–5, 17–30, etc.) that all converge on roughly the same "important" tokens. So most of the O(NL²) indexer cost is redundant computation of the same answer. This motivates IndexCache : split the N layers into two roles — F (Full) layers — run their own indexer, compute fresh top-k, cache it. S (Shared) layers — skip the indexer entirely, just reuse the nearest preceding F layer's cached top-k. The first layer is always F (has to seed the
My "serverless" database was billing me like it never slept. Neon has this great feature called scale-to-zero. Your Postgres compute suspends when it's idle, so you only pay for the queries you actually run. For a pre-revenue product, that should cost a few cents a month. Mine ran 24/7. The compute never once scaled to zero. The culprit wasn't my app logic. It was my database driver. I was using postgres-js, which holds a persistent connection open to the database. From Neon's side, an open connection looks like activity, so it never suspended. It just stayed awake and kept quietly billing me. The fix was basically one conceptual change: switch to @neondatabase/serverless, the HTTP driver. Instead of a long-lived connection, every query becomes a stateless one-shot HTTP request. The query fires, the connection closes, and the compute is free to suspend. Scale-to-zero finally worked. The lesson I keep relearning as a solo founder: "serverless" is a property of your whole stack, not a checkbox on one service. One persistent connection upstream and the whole cost model breaks.
I am committed to understand how systems actually work. I'm working on a multi-node lab to follow the complete path of a request from Python APIs to Linux processes, through Docker containers, networking and observability. The idea is simple: build a system that observes another system to understand the abstraction layers behind modern infrastructure. This project is about learning by building, experimenting and understanding what happens under the hood. Link: [ https://github.com/daniloprandi/devops-network-automation-lab ] DevOps #Linux #Python #Docker #Networking #Observability #Infrastructure
Factors like the short interval between the two powerful quakes and different types of soil led to some structures collapsing while others stayed standing.