100% accurate. It is very much political. I'd also add that the problem is perpetuated by a disconnection between engineers who produce the data and those who are responsible for paying for it. This is somewhat intentional and exploited by vendors.

Tero doesn't just tell you how much is waste. It breaks down exactly what's wrong, attributes it to each service, and makes it possible for teams to finally own their data quality (and cost).

One thing I'm hoping catches on: now that we can put a number on waste, it can become an SLO, just like any other metric teams are responsible for. Data quality becomes something that heals itself.

▲

stackskipton 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd be shocked if you can accurately identify waste since you are not ultimately familiar with the product.

Sure, I've kicked over what I thought was waste but told it's not or "It is but deal Ops"

▲

binarylogic 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You're right, it's not always binary. That's why we broke it down into categories:

https://docs.usetero.com/data-quality/logs/malformed-data

You'd be shocked how much obviously-safe waste (redundant attributes, health checks, debug logs left in production) accounts for before you even get to the nuanced stuff.

But think about this: if you had a service that was too expensive and you wanted to optimize the data, who would you ask? Probably the engineer who wrote the code, added the instrumentation, or whoever understands the service best. There's reasoning going on in their mind: failure scenarios, critical observability points, where the service sits in the dependency graph, what actually helps debug a 3am incident.

That reasoning can be captured. That's what I'm most excited about with Tero. Waste is just the most fundamental way to prove it. Each time someone tells us what's waste or not, the understanding gets stronger. Over time, Tero uses that same understanding to help engineers root cause, understand their systems, and more.

▲

nextaccountic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I would like to just have a storage engine that can be very aggressive at deduplicating stuff. If some data is redundant, why am I storing it twice?

	▲	HumanOstrich 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's already pretty common, but the goal isn't storing less data for its own sake.