From k6 to Simulation: Optimising AWS Burstable Instances

Photo Credit: Nitro Card, Why AWS is best!

In cloud infrastructure, the ultimate challenge is building systems that are not just resilient, but also radically efficient. We cannot afford to provision hardware for peak loads 24/7 because it is simply a waste of money.

In this article, I would like to share how to keep this balance using AWS burstable instances, Grafana observability, and discrete event simulation. Here is the blueprint for moving from seconds to milliseconds without breaking the bank.

The Power (and Risk) of Burstable Instances

To achieve radical efficiency, AWS offers the T-series (like T3 and T4g). These instances allow us to pay for a baseline CPU level while retaining the ability to “burst” during high-traffic periods. This performance is governed by CPU Credits.

Modern T3 instances run on the AWS Nitro System, which offloads I/O tasks. This means nearly 100% of the credits we burn are spent on our actual SQL queries rather than background noise.

By default, Amazon RDS T3 instances are configured for “Unlimited Mode”. This prevents our database from slowing down when credits hit zero, but it comes with a cost: We will be billed for the Surplus Credits.

How CPU Credits are earned vs. spent over time. (Source: AWS re:Invent 2018)

The Experiment: Designing the Stress Test

To truly understand how these credits behave under pressure, we built a controlled performance testing environment.

Our setup involved:

  • The Target: An Amazon RDS db.t3.medium instance.
  • The Generator: An EC2 instance running k6. We chose k6 because it allows us to write performance tests in JavaScript that are both developer-friendly and incredibly powerful.
  • The Workload: We simulated 200 concurrent users hitting an API that triggered heavy, CPU-bound SQL queries.

Simulation Fidelity with Micro-service

If we had k6 connect directly to PostgreSQL, it would not look like real production traffic. In order to make our stress test authentic, we introduce a simple NodeJS micro-service to act as the middleman.

This service does two critical things:

  1. Implements a Connection Pool: Using the pg library Pool with a max: 20 setting, it mimics how a real-world app manages database resources;
  2. Triggers the “Heavy Lifting”: The /heavy-query endpoint is designed to be purely CPU-bound. It forces the database to perform 1,000,000 calculations per request using nested generate_series.
const express = require('express');
const { Pool } = require('pg');
const app = express();
const port = 3000;
const pool = new Pool({
user: 'postgres',
host: '${TargetRDS.Endpoint.Address}',
database: 'postgres',
password: '${DBPassword}',
port: 5432,
max: 20,
ssl: { rejectUnauthorized: false }
});

app.get('/heavy-query', async (req, res) => {
try {
const result = await pool.query('SELECT count(*) FROM generate_series(1, 10000) as t1, generate_series(1, 100) as t2');
res.json({ status: 'success', data: result.rows[0] });
} catch (err) {
res.status(500).json({ error: err.message }); }
});

app.listen(port, () => console.log('API listening'));

In our k6 load test, we do not just flip a switch. We design a specific three-stage lifecycle for our RDS instance:

  1. Ramp Up: We started with a gradual ramp-up from 0 to 50 users. This allows the connection pool to warm up and ensures we are not seeing performance spikes just from initial handshakes;
  2. High-load Burn: We push the target to 200 concurrent users. These users will be hitting a /heavy-query endpoint that forces the database to calculate a million rows per second. This stage is designed to drain the CPUCreditBalance and prove that “efficiency” has its limits;
  3. Ramp Down: Finally, we ramp back down to zero. This is the crucial moment in Grafana where we watch to see if the CPU credits begin to accumulate again or if the instance remains in a “debt” state.
import http from 'k6/http';
import { check, sleep } from 'k6';

export const options = {
stages: [
{ duration: '30s', target: 50 }, // Profile 1: Ramp up
{ duration: '5m', target: 200 }, // Profile 1: Burn
{ duration: '1m', target: 0 }, // Profile 1: Ramp down
],
};

export default function () {
const res = http.get('http://localhost:3000/heavy-query');
check(res, { 'status was 200': (r) => r.status == 200 });
sleep(0.1);
}

Monitoring with Grafana

If we are earning CPU credits slower than we are burning them, we are effectively walking toward a performance (or financial) cliff. To be truly resilient, we must monitor our CPUCreditBalance.

We use Grafana to transform raw CloudWatch signals into a peaceful dashboard. While “Unlimited Mode” keeps the latency flat, Grafana reveals the truth: Our credit balance decreases rapidly when CPU utilisation goes up to 100%.

Grafana showing the inverse relationship between high CPU Utilisation and a dropping CPU Credit Balance.

Predicting the Future with Discrete Event Simulation

Physical load testing with k6 is essential, but it takes real-time to run and costs real money for instance uptime.

To solve this, we modelled Amazon RDS T3 instance using discrete event simulation and the Token Bucket Algorithm. Using the SNA library, a lightweight open-source library for C# and .NET, we can now:

  • Simulate a 24-hour traffic spike in just a few seconds;
  • Mathematically prove whether a rds.t3.medium is more cost-effective for a specific workload;
  • Predict exactly when an instance will run out of credits before we ever deploy it.
Simulation results from the SNA.

Final Thoughts

Efficiency is not just about saving money. Instead, it is about understanding the mathematical limits of our architecture. By combining AWS burstable instances with deep observability and predictive discrete event simulation, we can build systems that are both lean and unbreakable.

For those interested in the math behind the simulation, check out the SNA Library on GitHub.

The Blueprint Fallacy: A Case for Discrete Event Simulation in Modern Systems Architecture

Greetings from Taipei!

I just spent two days at the Hello World Dev Conference 2025 in Taipei, and beneath the hype around cloud and AI, I observed a single, unifying theme: The industry is desperately building tools to cope with a complexity crisis of its own making.

The agenda was a catalog of modern systems engineering challenges. The most valuable sessions were the “踩雷經驗” (landmine-stepping experiences), which offered hard-won lessons from the front lines.

A 2-day technical conference on AI, Kubernetes, and more!

However, these talks raised a more fundamental question for me. We are getting exceptionally good at building tools to detect and recover from failure but are we getting any better at preventing it?

This post is not a simple translation of a Mandarin-language Taiwan conference. It is my analysis of the patterns I observed. I have grouped the key talks I attended into three areas:

  • Cloud Native Infrastructure;
  • Reshaping Product Management and Engineering Productivity with AI;
  • Deep Dives into Advanced AI Engineering.

Feel free to choose to dive into the section that interests you most.

Session: Smart Pizza and Data Observability

This session was led by Shuhsi (林樹熙), a Data Engineering Manager at Micron. Micron needs no introduction, they are a massive player in the semiconductor industry, and their smart manufacturing facilities are a prime example of where data engineering is mission-critical.

Micron in Singapore (Credit: Forbes)

Shuhsi’s talk, “Data Observability by OpenLineage,” started with a simple story he called the “Smart Pizza” anomaly.

He presented a scenario familiar to anyone in a data-intensive environment: A critical dashboard flatlines, and the next three hours are a chaotic hunt to find out why. In his “Smart Pizza” example, the culprit was a silent, upstream schema change.

Smart pizza dashboard anomaly.

His solution, OpenLineage, is a powerful framework for what we would call digital forensics. It is about building a perfect, queryable map of the crime scene after the crime has been committed. By creating a clear data lineage, it reduces the “Mean Time to Discovery” from hours of panic to minutes of analysis.

Let’s be clear: This is critical, valuable work. Like OpenTelemetry for applications, OpenLineage brings desperately needed order to the chaos of modern data pipelines.

It is a fundamentally reactive posture. It helps us find the bullet path through the body with incredible speed and precision. However, my main point is that our ultimate goal must be to predict the bullet trajectory before the trigger is pulled. Data lineage minimises downtime. My work with simulation, which will be explained in the next session, aims to prevent it entirely by modelling these complex systems to find the breaking points before they break.

Session: Automating a .NET Discrete Event Simulation on Kubernetes

My talk, “Simulation Lab on Kubernetes: Automating .NET Parameter Sweeps,” addressed the wall that every complex systems analysis eventually hits: Combinatorial explosion.

While the industry is focused on understanding past failures, my session is about building the Discrete Event Simulation (DES) engine that can calculate and prevent future ones.

A restaurant simulation game in Honkai Impact 3rd. (Source:
西琳 – YouTube)

To make this concrete, I used the analogy of a restaurant owner asking, “Should I add another table or hire another waiter?” The only way to answer this rigorously is to simulate thousands of possible futures. The math becomes brutal, fast: testing 50 different configurations with 100 statistical runs each requires 5,000 independent simulations. This is not a task for a single machine; it requires a computational army.

My solution is to treat Kubernetes not as a service host, but as a temporary, on-demand supercomputer. The strategy I presented had three core pillars:

  • Declarative Orchestration: The entire 5,000-run DES experiment is defined in a single, clean Argo Workflows manifest, transforming a potential scripting nightmare into a manageable, observable process.
  • Radical Isolation: Each DES run is containerised in its own pod, creating a perfectly clean and reproducible experimental environment.
  • Controlled Randomness: A robust seeding strategy is implemented to ensure that “random” events in our DES are statistically valid and comparable across the entire distributed system.
The turnout for my DES session confirmed a growing hunger in our industry for proactive, simulation-driven approaches to engineering.

The final takeaway was a strategic re-framing of a tool many of us already use. Kubernetes is more than a platform for web apps. It can also be a general-purpose compute engine capable of solving massive scientific and financial modelling problems. It is time we started using it as such.

Session: AI for BI

Denny’s (監舜儀) session on “AI for BI” illustrated a classic pain point: The bottleneck between business users who need data and the IT teams who provide it. The proposed solution was a natural language interface, the FineChatBI, a tool designed to sit on top of existing BI platforms to make querying existing data easier.

Denny is introducing AI for BI.

His core insight was that the tool is the easy part. The real work is in building the “underground root system” which includes the immense challenge of defining metrics, managing permissions, and untangling data semantics. Without this foundation, any AI is doomed to fail.

Getting the underground root system right is important for building AI projects.

This is a crucial step forward in making our organisations more data-driven. However, we must also be clear about what problem is being solved.

This is a system designed to provide perfect, instantaneous answers to the question, “What happened?”

My work, and the next category of even more complex AI, begins where this leaves off. It seeks to answer the far harder question: “What will happen if…?” Sharpening our view of the past is essential, but the ultimate strategic advantage lies in the ability to accurately simulate the future.

Session: The Impossibility of Modeling Human Productivity

The presented Jugg (劉兆恭) is a well-known agile coach and the organiser of Agile Tour Taiwan 2020. His talk, “An AI-Driven Journey of Agile Product Development – From Inspiration to Delivery,” was a masterclass in moving beyond vanity metrics to understand and truly improve engineering performance.

Jugg started with a graph that every engineering lead knows in their gut. As a company grows over time:

  • Business grow (purple line, up);
  • Software architecture and complexity grow (first blue line, up);
  • The number of developers increases (second blue line, up);
  • Expected R&D productivity should grow (green line, up);
  • But paradoxically, the actual R&D productivity often stagnates or even declines (red line, down).

Jugg provided a perfect analogue for the work I do. He tackled the classic productivity paradox: Why does output stagnate even as teams grow? He correctly diagnosed the problem as a failure of measurement and proposed the SPACE framework as a more holistic model for this incredibly complex human system.

He was, in essence, trying to answer the same class of question I do: “If we change an input variable (team process), how can we predict the output (productivity)?”

This is where the analogy becomes a powerful contrast. Jugg’s world of human systems is filled with messy, unpredictable variables. His solutions are frameworks and dashboards. They are the best tools we have for a system that resists precise calculation.

This session reinforced my conviction that simulation is the most powerful tool we have for predicting performance in the systems we can actually control: Our code and our infrastructure. We do not have to settle for dashboards that show us the past because we can build models that calculate the future.

Session: Building a Map of “What Is” with GraphRAG

The most technically demanding session came from Nils (劉岦崱), a Senior Data Scientist at Cathay Financial Holdings. He presented GraphRAG, a significant evolution beyond the “Naive RAG” most of us use today.

Nils is explaining what a Naive RAG is.

He argued compellingly that simple vector search fails because it ignores relationships. By chunking documents, we destroy the contextual links between concepts. GraphRAG solves this by transforming unstructured data into a structured knowledge graph: a web of nodes (entities) and edges (their relationships).

Enhancing RAG-based application accuracy by constructing and leveraging knowledge graphs (Image Credit: LangChain)

In essence, GraphRAG is a sophisticated tool for building a static map of a known world. It answers the question, “How are all the pieces in our universe connected right now?” For AI customer service, this is a game-changer, as it provides a rich, interconnected context for every query.

This means our data now has an explicit, queryable structure. So, the LLM gets a much richer, more coherent picture of the situation, allowing it to maintain context over long conversations and answer complex, multi-faceted questions.

This session was a brilliant reminder that all advanced AI is built on a foundation of rigorous data modelling.

However, a map, no matter how detailed, is still just a snapshot. It shows us the layout of the city, but it cannot tell us how the traffic will flow at 5 PM.

This is the critical distinction. GraphRAG creates a model of a system at rest and DES creates a model of a system in motion. One shows us the relationships while the other lets us press watch how those relationships evolve and interact over time under stress. GraphRAG is the anatomy chart and simulation is the stress test.

Session: Securing the AI Magic Pocket with LLM Guardrails

Nils from Cathay Financial Holdings returned to the stage for Day 2, and this time he tackled one of the most pressing issues in enterprise AI: Security. His talk “Enterprise-Grade LLM Guardrails and Prompt Hardening” was a masterclass in defensive design for AI systems.

What made the session truly brilliant was his central analogy. As he put it, an LLM is a lot like Doraemon: a super-intelligent, incredibly powerful assistant with a “magic pocket” of capabilities. It can solve almost any problem you give it. But, just like in the cartoon, if you give it vague, malicious, or poorly thought-out instructions, it can cause absolute chaos. For a bank, preventing that chaos is non-negotiable.

Nils grounded the problem in the official OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications.

There are two lines of defence: Guardrails and Prompt Hardening. The core of the strategy lies in understanding two distinct but complementary approaches:

  • Guardrails (The Fortress): An external firewall of input filters and output validators;
  • Prompt Hardening (The Armour): Internal defences built into the prompt to resist manipulation.

This is an essential framework for any enterprise deploying LLMs. It represents the state-of-the-art in building static defences.

While necessary, this defensive posture raises another important question for a developers: How does the fortress behave under a full-scale siege?

A static set of rules can defend against known attack patterns. But what about the unknown unknowns? What about the second-order effects? Specifically:

  • Performance Under Attack: What is the latency cost of these five layers of validation when we are hit with 10,000 malicious requests per second? At what point does the defence itself become a denial-of-service vector?
  • Emergent Failures: When the system is under load and memory is constrained, does one of these guardrails fail in an unexpected way that creates a new vulnerability?

These are not questions a security checklist can answer. They can only be answered by a dynamic stress test. The X-Teaming Nils mentioned is a step in this direction, but a full-scale DES is the ultimate laboratory.

Neil’s techniques are a static set of rules designed to prevent failure. Simulation is a dynamic engine designed to induce failure in a controlled environment to understand a system true breaking points. He is building the armour while my work with DES is in building the testing grounds to see where that armour will break.

Session: Driving Multi-Task AI with a Flowchart in a Single Prompt

The final and most thought-provoking session was delivered by 尹相志, who presented a brilliant hack: Embedding a Mermaid flowchart directly into a prompt to force an LLM to execute a deterministic, multi-step process.

尹相志,數據決策股份有限公司技術長。

He provided a new way beyond the chaos of autonomous agents and the rigidity of external orchestrators like LangGraph. By teaching the LLM to read a flowchart, he effectively turns it into a reliable state machine executor. It is a masterful piece of engineering that imposes order on a probabilistic system.

Action Grounding Principles proposed by 相志.

What he has created is the perfect blueprint. It is a model of a process as it should run in a world with no friction, no delays, and no resource contention.

And in that, he revealed the final, critical gap in our industry thinking.

A blueprint is not a stress test. A flowchart cannot answer the questions that actually determine the success or failure of a system at scale:

  • What happens when 10,000 users try to execute this flowchart at once and they all hit the same database lock?
  • What is the cascading delay if one step in the flowchart has a 5% chance of timing out?
  • Where are the hidden queues and bottlenecks in this process?

His flowchart is the architect’s beautiful drawing of an airplane. A DES is the wind tunnel. It is the necessary, brutal encounter with reality that shows us where the blueprint will fail under stress.

The ability to define a process is the beginning. The ability to simulate that process under the chaotic conditions of the real world is the final, necessary step to building systems that don’t just look good on paper, but actually work.

Final Thoughts and Key Takeaways from Taipei

My two days at the Hello World Dev Conference were not a tour of technologies. In fact, they were a confirmation of a dangerous blind spot in our industry.

From what I observe, they build tools for digital forensics to map past failures. They sharpen their tools with AI to perfectly understand what just happened. They create knowledge graphs to model the systems at rest. They design perfect, deterministic blueprints for how AI processes should work.

These are all necessary and brilliant advancements in the art of mapmaking.

However, the critical, missing discipline is the one that asks not “What is the map?”, but “What will happen to the city during the hurricane?” The hard questions of latency under load, failures, and bottlenecks are not found on any of their map.

Our industry is full of brilliant mapmakers. The next frontier belongs to people who can model, simulate, and predict the behaviour of complex systems under stress, before the hurricane reaches.

That is why I am building SNA, my .NET-based Discrete Event Simulation engine.

Hello, Taipei. Taken from the window of the conference venue.

I am leaving Taipei with a notebook full of ideas, a deeper understanding of the challenges and solutions being pioneered by my peers in the Mandarin-speaking tech community, and a renewed sense of excitement for the future we are all building.

Observing Orchard Core: Traces with Grafana Tempo and ADOT

In the previous article, we have discussed about how we can build a custom monitoring pipeline that has Grafana running on Amazon ECS to receive metrics and logs, which are two of the observability pillars, sent from the Orchard Core on Amazon ECS. Today, we will proceed to talk about the third pillar of observability, traces.

Source Code

The CloudFormation templates and relevant C# source codes discussed in this article is available on GitHub as part of the Orchard Core Basics Companion (OCBC) Project: https://github.com/gcl-team/Experiment.OrchardCore.Main.

Lisa Jung, senior developer advocate at Grafana, talks about the three pillars in observability (Image Credit: Grafana Labs)

About Grafana Tempo

To capture and visualise traces, we will use Grafana Tempo, an open-source, scalable, and cost-effective tracing backend developed by Grafana Labs. Unlike other tracing tools, Tempo does not require an index, making it easy to operate and scale.

We choose Tempo because it is fully compatible with OpenTelemetry, the open standard for collecting distributed traces, which ensures flexibility and vendor neutrality. In addition, Tempo seamlessly integrates with Grafana, allowing us to visualise traces alongside metrics and logs in a single dashboard.

Finally, being a Grafana Labs project means Tempo has strong community backing and continuous development.

About OpenTelemetry

With a solid understanding of why Tempo is our tracing backend of choice, let’s now dive deeper into OpenTelemetry, the open-source framework we use to instrument our Orchard Core app and generate the trace data Tempo collects.

OpenTelemetry is a Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) project and a vendor-neutral, open standard for collecting traces, metrics, and logs from our apps. This makes it an ideal choice for building a flexible observability pipeline.

OpenTelemetry provides SDKs for instrumenting apps across many programming languages, including C# via the .NET SDK, which we use for Orchard Core.

OpenTelemetry uses the standard OTLP (OpenTelemetry Protocol) to send telemetry data to any compatible backend, such as Tempo, allowing seamless integration and interoperability.

Both Grafana Tempo and OpenTelemetry are projects under the CNCF umbrella. (Image Source: CNCF Cloud Native Interactive Landscape)

Setup Tempo on EC2 With CloudFormation

It is straightforward to deploy Tempo on EC2.

Let’s walk through the EC2 UserData script that installs and configures Tempo on the instance.

First, we download the Tempo release binary, extract it, move it to a proper system path, and ensure it is executable.

wget https://github.com/grafana/tempo/releases/download/v2.7.2/tempo_2.7.2_linux_amd64.tar.gz
tar -xzvf tempo_2.7.2_linux_amd64.tar.gz
mv tempo /usr/local/bin/tempo
chmod +x /usr/local/bin/tempo

Next, we create a basic Tempo configuration file at /etc/tempo.yaml to define how Tempo listens for traces and where it stores trace data.

echo "
server:
http_listen_port: 3200
distributor:
receivers:
otlp:
protocols:
grpc:
endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4317
http:
endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4318
storage:
trace:
backend: local
local:
path: /tmp/tempo/traces
" > /etc/tempo.yaml

Let’s breakdown the configuration file above.

The http_listen_port allows us to set the HTTP port (3200) for Tempo internal web server. This port is used for health checks and Prometheus metrics.

After that, we configure where Tempo listens for incoming trace data. In the configuration above, we enabled OTLP receivers via both gRPC and HTTP, the two protocols that OpenTelemetry SDKs and agents use to send data to Tempo. Here, the ports 4317 (gRPC) and 4318 (HTTP) are standard for OTLP.

Last but not least, in the configuration, as demonstration purpose, we use the simplest one, local storage, to write trace data to the EC2 instance disk under /tmp/tempo/traces. This is fine for testing or small setups, but for production we will likely want to use services like Amazon S3.

In addition, since we are using local storage on EC2, we can easily SSH into the EC2 instance and directly inspect whether traces are being written. This is incredibly helpful during debugging. What we need to do is to run the following command to see whether files are being generated when our Orchard Core app emits traces.

ls -R /tmp/tempo/traces

The configuration above is intentionally minimal. As our setup grows, we can explore advanced options like remote storage, multi-tenancy, or even scaling with Tempo components.

Each flushed trace block (folder with UUID) contains a data.parquet file, which holds the actual trace data.

Finally, in order to enable Tempo to start on boot, we create a systemd unit file that allows Tempo to start on boot and automatically restart if it crashes.

cat <<EOF > /etc/systemd/system/tempo.service
[Unit]
Description=Grafana Tempo service
After=network.target

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/tempo -config.file=/etc/tempo.yaml
Restart=always
RestartSec=5
User=root
LimitNOFILE=1048576

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
EOF

systemctl daemon-reexec
systemctl daemon-reload
systemctl enable --now tempo

This systemd service ensures that Tempo runs in the background and automatically starts up after a reboot or a crash. This setup is crucial for a resilient observability pipeline.

Did You Know: When we SSH into an EC2 instance running Amazon Linux 2023, we will be greeted by a cockatiel in ASCII art! (Image Credit: OMG! Linux)

Understanding OTLP Transport Protocols

In the previous section, we configured Tempo to receive OTLP data over both gRPC and HTTP. These two transport protocols are supported by the OTLP, and each comes with its own strengths and trade-offs. Let’s break them down.

Ivy Zhuang from Google gave a presentation on gRPC and Protobuf at gRPConf 2024. (Image Credit: gRPC YouTube)

Tempo has native support for gRPC, and many OpenTelemetry SDKs default to using it. gRPC is a modern, high-performance transport protocol built on top of HTTP/2. It is the preferred option when performanceis critical. gRPC also supports streaming, which makes it ideal for high-throughput scenarios where telemetry data is sent continuously.

However, gRPC is not natively supported in browsers, so it is not ideal for frontend or web-based telemetry collection unless a proxy or gateway is used. In such scenarios, we will normally choose HTTP which is browser-friendly. HTTP is a more traditional request/response protocol that works well in restricted environments.

Since we are collecting telemetry from server-side like Orchard Core running on ECS, gRPC is typically the better choice due to its performance benefits and native support in Tempo.

Please take note that since gRPC requires HTTP/2, which some environments, for example, IoT devices and embedding systems, might not have mature gRPC client support, OTLP over HTTP is often preferred in simpler or constrained systems.

Daniel Stenberg, Senior Network Engineer at Mozilla, sharing about HTTP/2 at GOTO Copenhagen 2015. (Image Credit: GOTO Conferences YouTube)

gRPC allows multiplexing over a single connection using HTTP/2. Hence, in gRPC, all telemetry signals, i.e. logs, metrics, and traces, can be sent concurrently over one connection. However, with HTTP, each telemetry signal needs a separate POST request to its own endpoint as listed below to enforce clean schema boundaries, simplify implementation, and stay aligned with HTTP semantics.

  • Logs: /v1/logs;
  • Metrics: /v1/metrics;
  • Traces: /v1/traces.

In HTTP, since each signal has its own POST endpoint with its own protobuf schema in the body, there is no need for the receiver to guess what is in the body.

AWS Distro for Open Telemetry (ADOT)

Now that we have Tempo running on EC2 and understand the OTLP protocols it supports, the next step is to instrument our Orchard Core to generate and send trace data.

The following code snippet shows what a typical direct integration with Tempo might look like in an Orchard Core.

builder.Services
.AddOpenTelemetry()
.ConfigureResource(resource => resource.AddService(serviceName: "cld-orchard-core"))
.WithTracing(tracing => tracing
.AddAspNetCoreInstrumentation()
.AddOtlpExporter(options =>
{
options.Endpoint = new Uri("http://<tempo-ec2-host>:4317");
options.Protocol = OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OtlpExportProtocol.Grpc;
})
.AddConsoleExporter());

This approach works well for simple use cases during development stage, but it comes with trade-offs that are worth considering. Firstly, we couple our app directly to the observability backend, reducing flexibility. Secondly, central management becomes harder when we scale to many services or environments.

This is where AWS Distro for OpenTelemetry (ADOT) comes into play.

The ADOT collector. (Image credit: ADOT technical docs)

ADOT is a secure, AWS-supported distribution of the OpenTelemetry project that simplifies collecting and exporting telemetry data from apps running on AWS services, for example our Orchard Core on ECS now. ADOT decouples our apps from the observability backend, provides centralised configuration, and handles telemetry collection more efficiently.

Sidecar Pattern

We can deploy the ADOT in several ways, such as running it on a dedicated node or ECS service to receive telemetry from multiple apps. We can also take the sidecar approach which cleanly separates concerns. Our Orchard Core app will focus on business logic, while a nearby ADOT sidecar handles telemetry collection and forwarding. This mirrors modern cloud-native patterns and gives us more flexibility down the road.

The sidecar pattern running in Amazon ECS. (Image Credit: AWS Open Source Blog)

The following CloudFormation template shows how we deploy ADOT as a sidecar in ECS using CloudFormation. The collector config is stored in AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store under /myapp/otel-collector-config, and injected via the AOT_CONFIG_CONTENT environment variable. This keeps our infrastructure clean, decoupled, and secure.

ecsTaskDefinition:
Type: AWS::ECS::TaskDefinition
Properties:
Family: !Ref ServiceName
NetworkMode: awsvpc
ExecutionRoleArn: !GetAtt ecsTaskExecutionRole.Arn
TaskRoleArn: !GetAtt iamRole.Arn
ContainerDefinitions:
- Name: !Ref ServiceName
Image: !Ref OrchardCoreImage
...

- Name: adot-collector
Image: public.ecr.aws/aws-observability/aws-otel-collector:latest
LogConfiguration:
LogDriver: awslogs
Options:
awslogs-group: !Sub "/ecs/${ServiceName}-log-group"
awslogs-region: !Ref AWS::Region
awslogs-stream-prefix: adot
Essential: false
Cpu: 128
Memory: 512
HealthCheck:
Command: ["/healthcheck"]
Interval: 30
Timeout: 5
Retries: 3
StartPeriod: 60
Secrets:
- Name: AOT_CONFIG_CONTENT
ValueFrom: !Sub "arn:${AWS::Partition}:ssm:${AWS::Region}:${AWS::AccountId}:parameter/otel-collector-config"
Deploy an ADOT sidecar on ECS to collect observability data from Orchard Core.

There are several interesting and important details in the CloudFormation snippet above that are worth calling out. Let’s break them down one by one.

Firstly, we choose awsvpc as the NetworkMode of the ECS task. In awsvpc, each container in the ECS task, i.e. our Orchard Core container and the ADOT sidecar, receives its own ENI (Elastic Network Interface). This is great for network-level isolation. With this setup, we can reference the sidecar from our Orchard Core using its container name through ECS internal DNS, i.e. http://adot-collector:4317.

Secondly, we include a health check for the ADOT container. ECS will use this health check to restart the container if it becomes unhealthy, improving reliability without manual intervention. In November 2022, Paurush Garg from AWS added the healthcheck component with the new ADOT collector release, so we can simply specify that we will be using this healthcheck component in the configuration that we will discuss next.

Yes, the configuration! Instead of hardcoding the ADOT configuration into the task definition, we inject it securely at runtime using the AOT_CONFIG_CONTENT secret. This environment variable AOT_CONFIG_CONTENT is designed to enable us to configure the ADOT collector. It will override the config file used in the ADOT collector entrypoint command.

The SSM Parameter for the environment variable AOT_CONFIG_CONTENT.

Wrap-Up

By now, we have completed the journey of setting up Grafana Tempo on EC2, exploring how traces flow through OTLP protocols like gRPC and HTTP, and understanding why ADOT is often the better choice in production-grade observability pipelines.

With everything connected, our Orchard Core app is now able to send traces into Tempo reliably. This will give us end-to-end visibility with OpenTelemetry and AWS-native tooling.

References

Observing Orchard Core: Metrics and Logs with Grafana and Amazon CloudWatch

I recently deployed an Orchard Core app on Amazon ECS and wanted to gain better visibility into its performance and health.

Instead of relying solely on basic Amazon CloudWatch metrics, I decided to build a custom monitoring pipeline that has Grafana running on Amazon EC2 receiving metrics and EMF (Embedded Metrics Format) logs sent from the Orchard Core on ECS via CloudFormation configuration.

In this post, I will walk through how I set this up from scratch, what challenges I faced, and how you can do the same.

Source Code

The CloudFormation templates and relevant C# source codes discussed in this article is available on GitHub as part of the Orchard Core Basics Companion (OCBC) Project: https://github.com/gcl-team/Experiment.OrchardCore.Main.

Why Grafana?

In the previous post where we setup the Orchard Core on ECS, we talked about how we can send metrics and logs to CloudWatch. While it is true that CloudWatch offers us out-of-the-box infrastructure metrics and AWS-native alarms and logs, the dashboards CloudWatch provides are limited and not as customisable. Managing observability with just CloudWatch gets tricky when our apps span multiple AWS regions, accounts, or other cloud environments.

The GrafanaLive event in Singapore in September 2023. (Event Page)

If we are looking for solution that is not tied to single vendor like AWS, Grafana can be one of the options. Grafana is an open-source visualisation platform that lets teams monitor real-time metrics from multiple sources, like CloudWatch, X-Ray, Prometheus and so on, all in unified dashboards. It is lightweight, extensible, and ideal for observability in cloud-native environments.

Is Grafana the only solution? Definitely not! However, personally I still prefer Grafana because it is open-source and free to start. In this blog post, we will also see how easy to host Grafana on EC2 and integrate it directly with CloudWatch with no extra agents needed.

Three Pillars of Observability

In observability, there are three pillars, i.e. logs, metrics, and traces.

Lisa Jung, senior developer advocate at Grafana, talks about the three pillars in observability (Image Credit: Grafana Labs)

Firstly, logs are text records that capture events happening in the system.

Secondly, metrics are numeric measurements tracked over time, such as HTTP status code counts, response times, or ECS CPU and memory utilisation rates.

Finally, traces show the form a strong observability foundation which can help us to identify issues faster, reduce downtime, and improve system reliability. This will ultimately support better user experience for our apps.

This is where we need a tool like Grafana because Grafana assists us to visualise, analyse, and alert based on our metrics, making observability practical and actionable.

Setup Grafana on EC2 with CloudFormation

It is straightforward to install Grafana on EC2.

Firstly, let’s define the security group that we will be use for the EC2.

ec2SecurityGroup:
Type: AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup
Properties:
GroupDescription: Allow access to the EC2 instance hosting Grafana
VpcId: {"Fn::ImportValue": !Sub "${CoreNetworkStackName}-${AWS::Region}-vpcId"}
SecurityGroupIngress:
- IpProtocol: tcp
FromPort: 22
ToPort: 22
CidrIp: 0.0.0.0/0 # Caution: SSH open to public, restrict as needed
- IpProtocol: tcp
FromPort: 3000
ToPort: 3000
CidrIp: 0.0.0.0/0 # Caution: Grafana open to public, restrict as needed
Tags:
- Key: Stack
Value: !Ref AWS::StackName

The VPC ID is imported from another of the common network stack, the cld-core-network, we setup. Please refer to the stack cld-core-network here.

For demo purpose, please notice that both SSH (port 22) and Grafana (port 3000) are open to the world (0.0.0.0/0). It is important to protect the access to EC2 by adding a bastion host, VPN, or IP restriction later.

In addition, the SSH should only be opened temporarily. The SSH access is for when we need to log in to the EC2 instance and troubleshoot Grafana installation manually.

Now, we can proceed to setup EC2 with Grafana installed using the CloudFormation resource below.

ec2Instance:
Type: AWS::EC2::Instance
Properties:
InstanceType: !Ref InstanceType
ImageId: !Ref Ec2Ami
NetworkInterfaces:
- AssociatePublicIpAddress: true
DeviceIndex: 0
SubnetId: {"Fn::ImportValue": !Sub "${CoreNetworkStackName}-${AWS::Region}-publicSubnet1Id"}
GroupSet:
- !Ref ec2SecurityGroup
UserData:
Fn::Base64: !Sub |
#!/bin/bash
yum update -y
yum install -y wget unzip
wget https://dl.grafana.com/oss/release/grafana-10.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm
yum install -y grafana-10.1.0-1.x86_64.rpm
systemctl enable --now grafana-server
Tags:
- Key: Name
Value: "Observability-Instance"

In the CloudFormation template above, we are expecting our users to access the Grafana dashboard directly over the Internet. Hence, we put the EC2 in public subnet and assign an Elastic IP (EIP) to it, as demonstrated below, so that we can have a consistent public accessible static IP for our Grafana.

ecsEip:
Type: AWS::EC2::EIP

ec2EIPAssociation:
Type: AWS::EC2::EIPAssociation
Properties:
AllocationId: !GetAtt ecsEip.AllocationId
InstanceId: !Ref ec2Instance

For production systems, placing instances in public subnets and exposing them with a public IP requires us to have strong security measures in place. Otherwise, it is recommended to place our Grafana EC2 instance in private subnets and accessed via Application Load Balancer (ALB) or NAT Gateway to reduce the attack surface.

Pump CloudWatch Metrics to Grafana

Grafana supports CloudWatch as a native data source.

With the appropriate AWS credentials and region, we can use Access Key ID and Secret Access Key to grant Grafana the access to CloudWatcch. The user that the credentials belong to must have the AmazonGrafanaCloudWatchAccess policy.

The user that Grafana uses to access CloudWatch must have the AmazonGrafanaCloudWatchAccess policy.

However, using AWS Access Key/Secret in Grafana data source connection details is less secure and not ideal for EC2 setups. In addition, AmazonGrafanaCloudWatchAccess is a managed policy optimised for running Grafana as a managed service within AWS. Thus, it is recommended to create our own custom policy so that we can limit the permissions to only what is needed, as demonstrated with the following CloudWatch template.

ec2InstanceRole:
Type: AWS::IAM::Role
Properties:
AssumeRolePolicyDocument:
Version: '2012-10-17'
Statement:
- Effect: Allow
Principal:
Service: ec2.amazonaws.com
Action: sts:AssumeRole

Policies:
- PolicyName: EC2MetricsAndLogsPolicy
PolicyDocument:
Version: '2012-10-17'
Statement:
- Sid: AllowReadingMetricsFromCloudWatch
Effect: Allow
Action:
- cloudwatch:ListMetrics
- cloudwatch:GetMetricData
Resource: "*"
- Sid: AllowReadingLogsFromCloudWatch
Effect: Allow
Action:
- logs:DescribeLogGroups
- logs:GetLogGroupFields
- logs:StartQuery
- logs:StopQuery
- logs:GetQueryResults
- logs:GetLogEvents
Resource: "*"

Again, using our custom policy provides better control and follows the best practices of least privilege.

With IAM role, we do not need to provide AWS Access Key/Secret in Grafana connection details for CloudWatch as a data source.

Visualising ECS Service Metrics

Now that Grafana is configured to pull data from CloudWatch, ECS metrics like CPUUtilization and MemoryUtilization, are available. We can proceed to create a dashboard and select the right namespace as well as the right metric name.

Setting up the diagram for memory utilisation of our Orchard Core app in our ECS cluster.

As shown in the following dashboard, we show memory and CPU utilisation rates because they help us ensure that our ECS services are performing within safe limits and not overusing or underutilizing resources. By monitoring the utilisation, we ensure our services are using just the right amount of resources.

Both ECS service metrics and container insights are displayed on Grafana dashboard.

Visualising ECS Container Insights Metrics

ECS Container Insights Metrics are deeper metrics like task counts, network I/O, storage I/O, and so on.

In the dashboard above, we can also see the number of Task Count. Task Count helps us make sure our services are running the right number of instances at all times.

Task Count by itself is not a cost metric, but if we consistently see high task counts with low CPU/memory usage, it indicates we can potentially consolidate workloads and reduce costs.

Instrumenting Orchard Core to Send Custom App Metrics

Now that we have seen how ECS metrics are visualised in Grafana, let’s move on to instrumenting our Orchard Core app to send custom app-level metrics. This will give us deeper visibility into what our app is really doing.

Metrics should be tied to business objectives. It’s crucial that the metrics you collect align with KPIs that can drive decision-making.

Metrics should be actionable. The collected data should help identify where to optimise, what to improve, and how to make decisions. For example, by tracking app-metrics such as response time and HTTP status codes, we gain insight into both performance and reliability of our Orchard Core. This allows us to catch slowdowns or failures early, improving user satisfaction.

SLA vs SLO vs SLI: Key Differences in Service Metrics (Image Credit: Atlassian)

By tracking response times and HTTP code counts at the endpoint level,
we are measuring SLIs that are necessary to monitor if we are meeting our SLOs.

With clear SLOs and SLIs, we can then focus on what really matters from a performance and reliability perspective. For example, a common SLO could be “99.9% of requests to our Orchard Core API endpoints must be processed within 500ms.”

In terms of sending custom app-level metrics from our Orchard Core to CloudWatch and then to Grafana, there are many approaches depending on our use case. If we are looking for simplicity and speed, CloudWatch SDK and EMF are definitely the easiest and most straightforward methods we can use to get started with sending custom metrics from Orchard Core to CloudWatch, and then visualising them in Grafana.

Using CloudWatch SDK to Send Metrics

We will start with creating a middleware called EndpointStatisticsMiddleware with AWSSDK.CloudWatch NuGet package referenced. In the middleware, we create a MetricDatum object to define the metric that we want to send to CloudWatch.

var metricData = new MetricDatum
{
MetricName = metricName,
Value = value,
Unit = StandardUnit.Count,
Dimensions = new List<Dimension>
{
new Dimension
{
Name = "Endpoint",
Value = endpointPath
}
}
};

var request = new PutMetricDataRequest
{
Namespace = "Experiment.OrchardCore.Main/Performance",
MetricData = new List<MetricDatum> { metricData }
};

In the code above, we see new concepts like Namespace, Metric, and Dimension. They are foundational in CloudWatch. We can think of them as ways to organize and label our data to make it easy to find, group, and analyse.

  • Namespace: A container or category for our metrics. It helps to group related metrics together;
  • Metric: A series of data points that we want to track. The thing we are measuring, in our example, it could be Http2xxCount and Http4xxCount;
  • Dimension:A key-value pair that adds context to a metric.

If we do not define the Namespace, Metric, and Dimensions carefully when we send data, Grafana later will not find them, or our charts on the dashboards will be very messy and hard to filter or analyse.

In addition, as shown in the code above, we are capturing the HTTP status code for our Orchard Core endpoints. We will then use PutMetricDataAsync to send the metric data PutMetricDataRequest asynchronously to CloudWatch.

The HTTP status codes of each of our Orchard Core endpoints are now captured on CloudWatch.

In Grafana, now when we want to configure a CloudWatch panel to show the HTTP status codes for each of the endpoint, the first thing we select is the Namespace, which is Experiment.OrchardCore.Main/Performance in our example. Namespace tells Grafana which group of metrics to query.

After picking the Namespace, Grafana lists the available Metrics inside that Namespace. We pick the Metrics we want to plot, such as Http2xxCount and Http4xxCount. Finally, since we are tracking metrics by endpoint, we set the Dimension to Endpoint and select the specific endpoint we are interested in, as shown in the following screenshot.

Using EMF to Send Metrics

While using the CloudWatch SDK works well for sending individual metrics, EMF (Embedded Metric Format) offers a more powerful and scalable way to log structured metrics directly from our app logs.

Before we can use EMF, we must first ensure that the Orchard Core application logs from our ECS tasks are correctly sent to CloudWatch Logs. This is done by configuring the LogConfiguration inside the ECS TaskDefinition as we discussed last time.

  # Unit 12: ECS Task Definition and Service
ecsTaskDefinition:
Type: AWS::ECS::TaskDefinition
Properties:
...
ContainerDefinitions:
- Name: !Ref ServiceName
Image: !Ref OrchardCoreImage
LogConfiguration:
LogDriver: awslogs
Options:
awslogs-group: !Sub "/ecs/${ServiceName}-log-group"
awslogs-region: !Ref AWS::Region
awslogs-stream-prefix: ecs
...

Once the ECS task is sending logs to CloudWatch Logs, we can start embedding custom metrics into the logs using EMF.

Instead of pushing metrics directly using the CloudWatch SDK, we send structured JSON messages into the container logs. CloudWatch will then auto detects these EMF messages and converts them into CloudWatch Metrics.

The following shows what a simple EMF log message looks like.

{
"_aws": {
"Timestamp": 1745653519000,
"CloudWatchMetrics": [
{
"Namespace": "Experiment.OrchardCore.Main/Performance",
"Dimensions": [["Endpoint"]],
"Metrics": [
{ "Name": "ResponseTimeMs", "Unit": "Milliseconds" }
]
}
]
},
"Endpoint": "/api/v1/packages",
"ResponseTimeMs": 142
}

When a log message reaches CloudWatch Logs, CloudWatch scans the text and looks for a valid _aws JSON object inside anywhere in the message. Thus, even if our log line has extra text before or after, as long as the EMF JSON is properly formatted, CloudWatch extracts it and publishes the metrics automatically.

An example of log with EMF JSON in it on CloudWatch.

After CloudWatch extracts the EMF block from our log message, it automatically turns it into a proper CloudWatch Metric. These metrics are then queryable just like any normal CloudWatch metric and thus available inside Grafana too, as shown in the screenshot below.

Metrics extracted from logs containing EMF JSON are automatically turned into metrics that can be visualised in Grafana just like any other metric.

As we can see, using EMF is easier as compared to going the CloudWatch SDK route because we do not need to change or add extra AWS infrastructure. With EMF, what our app does is just writing special JSON-format logs.

Then CloudWatch Metrics automatically extracts the metrics from those logs with EMF JSON. The entire process requires no new service, no special SDK code, and no CloudWatch PutMetric API calls.

Cost Optimisation with Logs vs Metrics

Logs are more expensive than metrics, especially when we are storing large amounts of data over time. This is also true when logs are stored at a higher retention rate and are more detailed, which means higher storage costs.

Metrics are cheaper to store because they are aggregated data points that do not require the same level of detail as logs.

CloudWatch treats each unique combination of dimensions as a separate metric, even if the metrics have the same metric name. However, compared to logs, metrics are still usually much cheaper at scale.

By embedding metrics into your log data via EMF, we are actually piggybacking metrics into logs, and letting CloudWatch extract metrics without duplicating effort. Thus, when using EMF, we will be paying for both, i.e.

  1. Log ingestion and storage (for the raw logs);
  2. The extracted custom metric (for the metric).

Hence, when we are leveraging EMF, we should consider expire logs faster if we only need the extracted metrics long-term.

Granularity and Sampling

Granularity refers to how frequent the metric data is collected. Fine granularity provides more detailed insights but can lead to increased data volume and costs.

Sampling is a technique to reduce the amount of data collected by capturing only a subset of data points (especially helpful in high-traffic systems). However, the challenge is ensuring that you maintain enough data to make informed decisions while keeping storage and processing costs manageable.

In our Orchard Core app above, currently the middleware that we implement will immediately PutMetricDataAsync to CloudWatch which will then not only slow down our API but it costs more because we need to pay when we send custom metrics to CloudWatch. Thus, we usually “buffer” the metrics first, and then batch-send periodically. This can be done with, for example, HostedService which is an ASP.NET Core background service, to flush metrics at interval.

using Amazon.CloudWatch;
using Amazon.CloudWatch.Model;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Options;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;

public class MetricsPublisher(
IAmazonCloudWatch cloudWatch,
IOptions<MetricsOptions> options,
ILogger<MetricsPublisher> logger) : BackgroundService
{
private readonly ConcurrentBag<MetricDatum> _pendingMetrics = new();

public void TrackMetric(string metricName, double value, string endpointPath)
{
_pendingMetrics.Add(new MetricDatum
{
MetricName = metricName,
Value = value,
Unit = StandardUnit.Count,
Dimensions = new List<Dimension>
{
new Dimension
{
Name = "Endpoint",
Value = endpointPath
}
}
});
}

protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
logger.LogInformation("MetricsPublisher started.");
while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(options.FlushIntervalSeconds), stoppingToken);
await FlushMetricsAsync();
}
}

private async Task FlushMetricsAsync()
{
if (_pendingMetrics.IsEmpty) return;

const int MaxMetricsPerRequest = 1000;

var metricsToSend = new List<MetricDatum>();
var metricsCount = 0;
while (_pendingMetrics.TryTake(out var datum))
{
metricsToSend.Add(datum);

metricsCount += 1;
if (metricsCount >= MaxMetricsPerRequest) break;
}

var request = new PutMetricDataRequest
{
Namespace = options.Namespace,
MetricData = metricsToSend
};

int attempt = 0;
while (attempt < options.MaxRetryAttempts)
{
try
{
await cloudWatch.PutMetricDataAsync(request);
logger.LogInformation("Flushed {Count} metrics to CloudWatch.", metricsToSend.Count);
break;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
attempt++;
logger.LogWarning(ex, "Failed to flush metrics. Attempt {Attempt}/{MaxAttempts}", attempt, options.MaxRetryAttempts);
if (attempt < options.MaxRetryAttempts)
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(options.RetryDelaySeconds));
else
logger.LogError("Max retry attempts reached. Dropping {Count} metrics.", metricsToSend.Count);
}
}
}

public override async Task StopAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
logger.LogInformation("MetricsPublisher stopping.");
await FlushMetricsAsync();
await base.StopAsync(cancellationToken);
}
}

In our Orchard Core API, each incoming HTTP request may run on a different thread. Hence, we need a thread-safe data structure like ConcurrentBag for storing the pending metrics.

Please take note that ConcurrentBag is designed to be an unordered collection. It does not maintain the order of insertion when items are taken from it. However, since the metrics we are sending, which is the counts of HTTP status codes, it does not matter in what order the requests were processed.

In addition, the limit of MetricData that we can send to CloudWatch per request is 1,000. Thus, we have the constant MaxMetricsPerRequest to help us make sure that we retrieve and remove at most 1,000 metrics from the ConcurrentBag.

Finally, we can inject MetricsPublisher to our middleware EndpointStatisticsMiddleware so that it can auto track every API request.

Wrap-Up

In this post, we started by setting up Grafana on EC2, connected it to CloudWatch to visualise ECS metrics. After that, we explored two ways, i.e. CloudWatch SDK and EMF log, to send custom app-level metrics from our Orchard Core app:

Whether we are monitoring system health or reporting on business KPIs, Grafana with CloudWatch offers a powerful observability stack that is both flexible and cost-aware.

References