When Process Fails: Preventing Outages Before They Happen

It Wasn’t the Bug—It Was the Process

Welcome back to Tiny Big Spark—the newsletter for engineering leaders who know that small, deliberate changes often unlock the biggest breakthroughs. Whether you’re a rising tech lead or a battle-tested engineering manager, we’re here to share lessons from the trenches—real-world stories that strip away the buzzwords and get to the heart of how systems and teams actually succeed (or fail).

Powered by xAI’s Grok, we go beyond postmortems and finger-pointing. We dig into the messy, chaotic reality of engineering work—failed rollouts, frantic firefights, “how did this even get approved?” moments—and extract insights that help you build teams and systems that don’t just react to problems, but prevent them from ever reaching production.

This week, we’re tackling a challenge every leader has faced: when a seemingly simple change explodes into a nightmare. The lesson? Chasing down bugs won’t save you if the real issue is baked into your process.

Former Zillow exec targets $1.3T market

The wealthiest companies tend to target the biggest markets. For example, NVIDIA skyrocketed nearly 200% higher in the last year with the $214B AI market’s tailwind.

That’s why investors are so excited about Pacaso.

Created by a former Zillow exec, Pacaso brings co-ownership to a $1.3 trillion real estate market. And by handing keys to 2,000+ happy homeowners, they’ve made $110M+ in gross profit to date. They even reserved the Nasdaq ticker PCSO.

No wonder the same VCs behind Uber, Venmo, and eBay also invested in Pacaso. And for just $2.90/share, you can join them as an early-stage Pacaso investor today.

Invest for $2.90/Share

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

The Story: When a Routine Upgrade Goes Sideways

Picture this: you’re leading an SRE team responsible for a high-availability cluster. It’s a standard setup—two nodes, one active, one on standby, balancing traffic through a virtual IP for smooth failovers. The job on your plate? Update the load balancer software and tweak the configuration to handle a new backend type. Nothing exotic. The kind of change that, in theory, should barely raise eyebrows.

On paper, the process looks clean and professional:

1. Run a dry-run check on both nodes to preview the changes.

2. Apply the update to both nodes.

3. Verify everything works post-apply.

The plan gets a green light in a cross-team change management meeting. Everyone agrees it’s low-risk. The team’s lead signs off, and the rollout begins.

But here’s where it all unravels. Instead of updating one node in isolation, the team applies the change to both at once. Then—and only then—they verify. The result? The new config doesn’t play nicely with this cluster’s backend. Suddenly, traffic stutters. Alarms go off. Monitoring dashboards fill with red. PagerDuty chirps like it’s auditioning for a horror film soundtrack.

Now the team is scrambling. They start comparing configs with other clusters, puzzling over why this one broke when others didn’t. Some are digging into logs. Others are flipping through past incident tickets. Slack is blowing up. Leadership is asking for status updates every 10 minutes.

The natural instinct? Blame the config tweak. Or worse, blame the engineer who wrote it. But let’s pause here. Because this wasn’t some wild cowboy change. It passed review. It passed a dry-run. It passed a change management meeting. Everyone did what the process told them to do.

And yet, it still failed.

This wasn’t about one engineer messing up. It was about a process that quietly set the team up for failure.

The Only AI That Knows All Your Work

Most AI tools start from scratch every time. ClickUp Brain already knows the answers.

It has full context of all your work—docs, tasks, chats, files, and more. No uploading. No explaining. No repetitive prompting.

It's not just another AI tool. It's the first AI that actually understands your workflow because it lives where your work happens.

Join 150,000+ teams and save 1 day per week.

Try ClickUp Brain Free.

The Dilemma: Bug Fix or System Fix?

When things go south, the immediate focus is always the same: “get production back online.” Engineers dive headfirst into debugging—rolling back configs, tweaking parameters, rerunning tests. And to be fair, that’s what you have to do in the moment. The business can’t afford hours of downtime while you hold a leadership philosophy seminar.

But here’s the danger: if you stop at fixing the symptom, you miss the deeper disease.

Yes, you can fix the config this time. Yes, you can retrain staff or add another checklist item. But what about the next change? If your process doesn’t force early, isolated checks, you’re essentially gambling with production every time you roll something out.

It’s like tightening the bolts on a rickety bridge instead of redesigning the support beams. Sure, it’ll hold—for now. But eventually, the same stressors will bring it down again.

That’s the real dilemma: are you fixing the bug or fixing the system?

Auditing the Process: Ask the Right Questions

Too often, leaders jump straight into “we need to verify better” or “let’s retrain the team.” That sounds good, but it’s shallow. The more useful move is to zoom out and audit the workflow itself.

Here are the questions worth asking:

• What early warning failed? The dry-run was supposed to catch issues. Why didn’t it? Was it too superficial, only checking syntax instead of semantics?

• What step was skipped? Why were both nodes updated at once? Was that laziness, or was the process itself vague?

• Who owns the checks? Was there a clear role responsible for validation, or did everyone assume “someone else” was watching?

• What made the right move hard? Was there no time to test in isolation? Or no mechanism built into the workflow to make staggered rollout easy?

• What could’ve caught this earlier? Would applying to the standby node first have revealed the issue without risking production traffic?

Running this kind of audit with your team—especially the ones who felt the outage most acutely—is key. Not to assign blame, but to surface where the process itself bent under pressure. In this case, the audit reveals the core problem: the system treated the two nodes as a single unit. The process was too rushed to take advantage of the safety net built into the architecture itself.

A Smarter Process: Upgrades Without the Panic

So how do you prevent this kind of chaos next time? You design a process that:

1. Catches errors early

2. Isolates risk

3. Uses system design to your advantage

Here’s a step-by-step rebuild of the upgrade flow:

1. Preview the Change
   Run a dry-run check on both nodes. Catch obvious issues—syntax errors, mismatched configs—before touching production.

2. Isolate the Standby
   Put the standby node into maintenance mode. Keep traffic flowing through the active node, untouched.

3. Apply and Test in Isolation
   Apply the update to the standby node only. Start services, run simulated traffic, inspect logs. See if the config actually works with this cluster’s quirks. If it breaks, debug here—zero customer impact.

4. Failover with a Safety Net
   Bring the standby back online. Switch the virtual IP over. Monitor closely. If performance dips or alarms trigger, fail back to the active node instantly. Rollback is painless because the active node was left pristine.

This process is simple. It leverages what the cluster was already built for: redundancy. Failover isn’t just a disaster recovery tool; it’s a testing harness if you use it right.

And here’s the kicker: once this flow is documented, you can make the “safe path” the easy path. Automate parts of it—dry-runs, maintenance toggles, health checks. Even better, integrate an AI assistant (think Grok) to enforce guardrails: flag configs that differ too much from known-good baselines, remind the team to isolate nodes, or simulate traffic before failover.

Download our guide on AI-ready training data.

AI teams need more than big data—they need the right data. This guide breaks down what makes training datasets high-performing: real-world behavior signals, semantic scoring, clustering methods, and licensed assets. Learn to avoid scraped content, balance quality and diversity, and evaluate outputs using human-centric signals for scalable deployment.

Download the guide now

Beyond Load Balancers: Why This Matters Everywhere

This isn’t just a load balancer story. It’s universal.

• Rolling out a database schema? Don’t apply everywhere at once—shadow test on replicas.

• Deploying a new API version? Route 1% of traffic first.

• Updating a microservice? Use feature flags and instant rollbacks.

The principle holds: the real enemy isn’t the bug in front of you. It’s the weak process that let that bug into production without a safety net.

Lessons for Aspiring Leaders: Build Systems, Not Stress

The temptation in moments like these is to ask, “who messed up?” But strong leaders ask, “how do we make this mistake impossible next time?”

The truth is, you don’t want to rely on perfect engineers. You don’t want to rely on heroics. You want workflows that make the right move obvious and the wrong move hard.

That’s the mindset shift: from managing individuals to designing systems. Systems that anticipate failure. Systems that make recovery painless. Systems that keep the team focused on delivering value instead of firefighting.

And the best way to build those systems? Build them with your team, not for them. Start with their pain points. Capture the frustration from incidents like this one, then turn it into guardrails. That way, the team doesn’t feel burdened—they feel supported.

Want to level up? Tools like Grok can mine past incidents, surface recurring blind spots, and even suggest best practices borrowed from thousands of other systems. Think of it as having a mentor who’s lived through every possible outage and still has the energy to debrief you at 2am.

Closing Spark

Every leader has a choice: keep plugging leaks, or rebuild the pipes.

Chasing bugs is necessary in the heat of the moment, but if that’s all you ever do, you’ll live in a permanent firefight. True leadership is about designing processes that absorb failure gracefully and make recovery routine.

So the next time a “simple” change spirals into chaos, resist the urge to blame the bug—or the person. Look at the system that allowed it through. Fix that, and you won’t just solve one problem—you’ll prevent dozens more.

💬 What’s your take? Have you lived through an upgrade-from-hell story like this? Hit reply with your own lessons learned—I’d love to feature some reader war stories in future issues.

🔥 Until next time, keep lighting those tiny big sparks.

What’s your next spark? A new platform engineering skill? A bold pitch? A team ready to rise? Share your ideas or challenges at Tiny Big Spark. Let’s build your pyramid—together.

That’s it!

Keep innovating and stay inspired!

If you think your colleagues and friends would find this content valuable, we’d love it if you shared our newsletter with them!

PROMO CONTENT

Can email newsletters make money?

With the world becoming increasingly digital, this question will be on the minds of millions of people looking for new income streams in 2025.

The answer is—Absolutely!

That’s it for this episode!

Thank you for taking the time to read today’s email! Your support allows me to send out this newsletter for free every day. 

 What do you think for today’s episode? Please provide your feedback in the poll below.

Share the newsletter with your friends and colleagues if you find it valuable.

Disclaimer: The "Tiny Big Spark" newsletter is for informational and educational purposes only, not a substitute for professional advice, including financial, legal, medical, or technical. We strive for accuracy but make no guarantees about the completeness or reliability of the information provided. Any reliance on this information is at your own risk. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect any organization's official position. This newsletter may link to external sites we don't control; we do not endorse their content. We are not liable for any losses or damages from using this information.