Operations | Monitoring | ITSM | DevOps | Cloud

For our last episode of 2025, we’re focusing on Datadog releases announced at AWS re:Invent. Join Jeremy to see how you can manage logs at petabyte scale in your infrastructure, eliminate unneeded costs in Amazon S3 buckets, build agentic workflows, and detect credential leaks. Later in the episode, Scott spotlights how you can connect your AI agents to Datadog tools and context with our MCP Server.

After four days of AWS re:Invent—a 65,000-step marathon that included 60,000 attendees spread across five Las Vegas campuses—and navigating the latest installment of this 13-year-old cloud pilgrimage, we’re all a little dehydrated but significantly wiser. The volume of announcements felt less like a single flood and more like a river branching into three powerful currents. Making sense of this massive technological convergence requires zooming out.

Engineering organizations depend on clear team ownership to maintain reliable services and move quickly. But as codebases expand and teams shift, answering basic questions—Who owns this service? Who should be paged in an incident? Are teams meeting operational standards?—becomes harder.

Many organizations struggle to track how their cloud infrastructure changes over time. Modern environments span tens of thousands of resources across hundreds of accounts and multiple clouds. Application teams add new services and regions at a rapid pace, increasing the number and variety of resources that need to be managed. These shifts can cause infrastructure configurations to drift from a well-architected state, increasing the risk of service reliability issues and unexpected cloud spend.

Ten years ago, Datadog was a single-product company focused on breaking down the silos between dev and ops. As the shift towards the cloud accelerated and organizations transitioned to the new DevOps model, we set out to develop an observability platform that would enable these teams to safely scale faster and answer the essential questions about their services: are they available, secure, compliant, performant, and cost-efficient?

Running Kubernetes at scale almost always means paying for more compute than you need. To protect reliability, platform and application teams typically overprovision nodes early in development and keep scaling up as they add features and workloads. They are often reluctant to move to smaller or different instance types without a clear picture of how those changes will affect performance or availability. The result is a fleet of underutilized nodes that silently inflate your cloud bill.

When debugging production issues, investigating security incidents, or analyzing network traffic, engineers and analysts need not only to find the right logs but to make sense of all the dense, unstructured data generated by different systems. Logs rarely ship neatly laid out in a way that facilitates filtering, faceting, or graphing for every possible scenario. As a result, teams often find themselves writing regular expressions or custom parsers on the fly, which can be error-prone and time-consuming.

AI coding assistants are quickly becoming a core part of software engineering workflows, helping developers write, refactor, and review code faster. But without effective monitoring, it can be difficult to know whether these tools are performing reliably and proving useful to engineers. As organizations scale their use of tools like Claude Code, key questions emerge.

Engineering teams rely on forms for everything from approvals to checklists, yet the process usually lives outside engineering operations. Spreadsheets, one-off surveys, and external form builders capture inputs, but they create scattered data, slow follow-ups, and manual translation into actionable work. Datadog Forms enables teams to create and share interactive forms directly within Datadog.

Teams deploying LLM applications face a critical blind spot: They can measure speed and cost, but not whether their AI is actually giving good answers. To build user trust in these applications, teams also need to measure response quality, including factual accuracy, safety, and tone. Operational metrics show how a system behaves, but not whether its responses are correct or on brand.