Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

This past week we released the simple yet widely requested feature Server Nicknames, the ability to easily track and manage various servers with unique custom names. At first glance this may seem like a non update but not when you consider that most Cycle users are connecting many servers from multiple providers and locations in the cloud and on premises. With long default server names, this is a huge quality of life improvement.

Most cloud infrastructure and deployment misconfigurations start innocently enough: a dev under pressure to ship quickly tweaks a configuration file or adjusts a permission setting to make something work. It's not malicious and it might even be well thought out, but these small changes can cause a cascade of reactions that bring down production in seconds.

We all know the old adage, "No one gets fired for buying IBM," but this is probably the first time you've heard the same about Cycle. We're going to dive into exactly why this is true and why you can be confident in your choice to adopt Cycle for your organization.

In a world of managed services, details can often be skipped, overlooked, ignored, or just plain avoided. And in many cases, that's fine. But if you're here, reading this, then I will take it for granted that these things interest you, and I welcome you to join me on this journey of exploration, looking under the hood of two prominent container orchestration platforms on the market: Cycle and Kubernetes.

Gone are the days when scaling meant downtime, and introducing breaking fixes to production were more commonplace. In today's age of software development companies are adapting and quick to iterate, though we are still learning. The truth is Kubernetes has played a huge part in revolutionizing software development but it is not so straightforward as, 'adopt K8s and your organization will suddenly move in the right direction'.

Bare metal is BACK! For years virtualization has absolutely dominated the cloud market. The market for virtualization is still 10x larger than bare metal ($8B USD vs$100B USD). But now consumers are demanding MORE for their workloads. … and the signal from the data suggest that this trend isn't going away anytime soon. If we look a bit deeper, we might see another story enabling the avalanche of (re) adoption in bare metal.