Resilience, Disaster Recovery, and Factory SRE
Keep the factory safe and explainable when its own infrastructure fails.
A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.
Reconstruct and defend this chapter’s architecture.
Reconstruct the architecture, name each boundary, and defend the tradeoffs.
Open the source exercise
Fail the primary control-plane region during active code publication. Add a delayed provider response and a revoked tool. Show fencing, recovery mode, state restore, external reconciliation, operator decisions, and proof that no duplicate publication occurred.
4. Tradeoffs and alternatives
Multi-region active-active improves availability and makes consistency and fencing harder. Warm standby is simpler and increases recovery time. Chaos experiments reveal coupling and can harm shared environments; begin with simulation and controlled fault injection. Keeping every provider fallback ready may be more expensive than accepting bounded unavailability.
5. Current Mission Control Implementation
The current guide covers durable state, leases, retries, idempotency, reconciliation, cancellation, cleanup, provider degradation, alerts, SLOs, error budgets, and recovery. It does not yet specify or prove complete disaster recovery, regional failover, backup restoration, split-brain protection, or game-day evidence for the factory as a whole.
Review this chapter.
Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.
- Claim
- Boundary
- Failure
- Evidence