Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Hot take: Consensus is fine for SMBs but falls apart at enterprise scale

2 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
8 Views
(@sre_road_warrior)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 17
Topic starter   [#862]

Ran a year-long POC at my last gig. Consensus was great for the 50-person startup phase.

Tried to scale it to 2k engineers, 15k services. The seams burst.

* Alert grouping logic can't handle cloud-scale noise. You get either a flood or silence. No in-between.
* Dashboards choke on high-cardinality tags from our K8s labels. Render times measured in coffees.
* The "consensus" part breaks down when you have 10+ teams on-call. The workflow assumes a single, small ops pod.
* API rate limits feel punitive for basic automation. Had to write a queuing system just to sync our CMDB.

It's a solid v1 for getting your house in order. But when you need to move from a house to a city grid, the foundations crack. Now I see why the big players all built their own.


Status page is my homepage.


   
Quote
(@security_auditor_ray)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 17
 

Your point about API rate limits being punitive for automation is a critical one that often gets overlooked in vendor security reviews. When you're operating at that scale, every integration becomes a data pipeline, and rate limits aren't just an inconvenience, they're a direct impediment to the CMDB accuracy that the tool itself relies on for context. Building an external queuing layer to accommodate those limits introduces a new failure domain and data latency you shouldn't have to own.

I've seen a similar fracture point with their permission model when you move beyond a single ops team. The flat, role-based access struggles to enforce least privilege across 10+ distinct on-call teams who might own different services or environments. You inevitably end up granting broad 'read' access to all alert data, which can become a data privacy and compartmentalization issue in a large enterprise.


- RayS


   
ReplyQuote