Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

Most teams triage errors the same way. Check the error tracker in the morning, skim the stack traces, pick the ones that look urgent, start investigating. The rest pile up. By the time anyone gets to the long tail of production errors, the context is stale and the motivation is gone. What if that first pass happened automatically? We’ve been experimenting with a workflow that connects Scout’s error data to AI assistants through our MCP server.

Continuous monitoring tools track system health, performance, and behavior in real time across production environments. For a deeper understanding of how this fits into modern DevOps practices, see this guide on continuous monitoring and its impact on DevOps. They collect logs, metrics, and distributed traces across the infrastructure and application layers, giving engineering teams visibility into how their systems are running, where anomalies occur, and when something needs immediate attention.

Teams running LLM applications in production face a cost problem that traditional APM tools were never designed to solve. CPU and memory costs are relatively predictable — a web service processing 1,000 requests per second costs roughly the same week over week. LLM API costs are not. A single user session can cost $0.01 or $5 depending on prompt length, model choice, conversation history, and how many retries happen inside your chain.

This tutorial shows how to use GitHub Copilot with the Puppet Model Context Protocol (MCP) server to generate, validate, and refine a Puppet module—even if you’re new to Puppet development.

Sovereignty is one of those words that gets stretched until it means almost nothing. Vendors apply it to any infrastructure with a UK data center, regardless of who owns the parent company or which jurisdiction's courts govern the contract. For a developer running a personal project, that ambiguity is probably fine. For a fintech under FCA oversight, an NHS trust processing patient data, or a legal firm handling privileged communications, it isn't.

Enterprises have reached a point where the pace of modernization no longer depends on the number of tools they deploy or the volume of telemetry they collect. Progress depends on whether teams can form a consistent and verifiable understanding of what is happening inside the environment. Many organizations do not realize that the single greatest barrier to modernization is the absence of operational truth.

The Enterprise AI Survey conducted by Digitate in collaboration with Sapio Research states that the journey of enterprise automation and AI adoption has evolved significantly. The initial waves focused primarily on improving accuracy, efficiency, and reducing costs. Now, the next phase, Agentic AI, is transforming this shift from mere automation to dynamic collaboration.

The Processing Engine is one of the most powerful features in InfluxDB 3. It lets you run Python code at the database—transforming data on ingest, running scheduled jobs, or serving HTTP requests—without spinning up external services or building middleware. You define the logic, attach it to a trigger, and the database handles the rest. Since launching the Processing Engine, we’ve been building out both the engine itself and the ecosystem of plugins that run on it.

This guest blog post is by Tohn Furutani, SRE Engineer at NTT DATA. Over the past year, the conversation around generative AI has shifted from single-shot use cases—such as summarization, Q&A, and chat interfaces—to agentic AI systems that can make decisions based on context, plan multistep actions, invoke tools, and adapt as conditions change.

Most "agent observability best practices" content reads like a compliance checklist from 2019 with "AI" pasted over "microservices." Implement comprehensive logging. Establish evaluation metrics. Create governance frameworks. Not a single line of code. No mention of what happens when your agent silently picks the wrong tool on turn 3 and you need to figure out why.