Welcome!

@DevOpsSummit Authors: Liz McMillan, Yeshim Deniz, Zakia Bouachraoui, Pat Romanski, Elizabeth White

Related Topics: @DevOpsSummit, Java IoT, Containers Expo Blog

@DevOpsSummit: Blog Feed Post

Segmented Results for First Party Resources | @DevOpsSummit #DevOps

Content that is served via a host name (or domain) other than that of the HTML page itself is considered to be third party or CD

Segmented Results for First Party Resources, CDNs, and Third-Party Providers
by Alexander Sommer

Beginning with Ruxit Agent v1.76, Ruxit real user monitoring evaluates the content sources of all browser-loaded content to determine if the content is “3rd party” content, “1st party” content, or CDN-delivered content. This valuable content distinction gives you greater insight into the resources that are utilized by your application and facilitates performance optimizations.

Content that is served via a host name (or domain) other than that of the HTML page itself is considered to be third party or CDN content. If the content is served via a host name that is the same as that of the HTML page itself, the content is considered to be “first party” content.

For third party content and CDNs, Ruxit automatically detects more than 1,000 internet host names. Unrecognized Internet host names (domains) are also treated by default as third party resources. Third party and CDN host names are grouped together automatically. Following is an example that illustrates how Ruxit groups resources:

The user loads the following URL into their browser:
http://www.myhost.com/index.html

As a result, /index.html is loaded from internet host: www.myhost.com
table1

Ruxit recognizes that Index.html relies on the following content resources:
table2

A few observations:

  • Entries 1-4 are Internet host names that are automatically recognized by Ruxit as 3rd party and CDN resources.
  • Entries 3 and 4 are grouped into the same provider (though the host names don’t match) because Ruxit recognizes them.
  • Entry 6 is treated as a 1st party resource because its host name is the same as that of the HTML page itself (www.myhost.com).
  • Entries 5 and 7 are unrecognized domains and are therefore categorized as 3rd party resources.

Adding 1st party resources

Beginning with Ruxit Agent v1.76, you can now define 1st party content resources in your environment. As a use case, consider the example above. What if entry 7 (img.image-myhost.com) is one of your organization’s servers? Go to Settings > Real user monitoring > Resources, define a new 1st party resource, and add the domain name (img.image-myhost.com).

1st party resource configuration

1st party resource configuration

1st party resource configuration

Search for known third party providers

As our list of auto-detected Internet host names is growing rapidly, you can now also search for content providers or host names using the Out-of-the-box detected providers search field:

1st party configuration

Segmented monitoring results
As you can see below, Ruxit tracks monitoring results for 1st party resources separately from 3rd party and CDN content:

1st party resource configuration

1st party resource configuration

The post Segmented results for 1st party resources, CDNs, and 3rd party providers appeared first on The Ruxit Blog.

Read the original blog entry...

More Stories By Dynatrace Blog

Building a revolutionary approach to software performance monitoring takes an extraordinary team. With decades of combined experience and an impressive history of disruptive innovation, that’s exactly what we ruxit has.

Get to know ruxit, and get to know the future of data analytics.

@DevOpsSummit Stories
With more than 30 Kubernetes solutions in the marketplace, it's tempting to think Kubernetes and the vendor ecosystem has solved the problem of operationalizing containers at scale or of automatically managing the elasticity of the underlying infrastructure that these solutions need to be truly scalable. Far from it. There are at least six major pain points that companies experience when they try to deploy and run Kubernetes in their complex environments. In this presentation, the speaker will detail these pain points and explain how cloud can address them.
While DevOps most critically and famously fosters collaboration, communication, and integration through cultural change, culture is more of an output than an input. In order to actively drive cultural evolution, organizations must make substantial organizational and process changes, and adopt new technologies, to encourage a DevOps culture. Moderated by Andi Mann, panelists discussed how to balance these three pillars of DevOps, where to focus attention (and resources), where organizations might slip up with the wrong focus, how to manage change and risk in all three areas, what is possible and what is not, where to start, and especially how new structures, processes, and technologies can help drive a new DevOps culture.
When building large, cloud-based applications that operate at a high scale, it's important to maintain a high availability and resilience to failures. In order to do that, you must be tolerant of failures, even in light of failures in other areas of your application. "Fly two mistakes high" is an old adage in the radio control airplane hobby. It means, fly high enough so that if you make a mistake, you can continue flying with room to still make mistakes. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Lee Atchison, Principal Cloud Architect and Advocate at New Relic, discussed how this same philosophy can be applied to highly scaled applications, and can dramatically increase your resilience to failure.
As Cybric's Chief Technology Officer, Mike D. Kail is responsible for the strategic vision and technical direction of the platform. Prior to founding Cybric, Mike was Yahoo's CIO and SVP of Infrastructure, where he led the IT and Data Center functions for the company. He has more than 24 years of IT Operations experience with a focus on highly-scalable architectures.
The explosion of new web/cloud/IoT-based applications and the data they generate are transforming our world right before our eyes. In this rush to adopt these new technologies, organizations are often ignoring fundamental questions concerning who owns the data and failing to ask for permission to conduct invasive surveillance of their customers. Organizations that are not transparent about how their systems gather data telemetry without offering shared data ownership risk product rejection, regulatory scrutiny and increasing consumer lack of trust in technology in general.