Komodor is an autonomous AI SRE platform for Kubernetes. Powered by Klaudia, it’s an agentic AI solution for visualizing, troubleshooting and optimizing cloud-native infrastructure, allowing enterprises to operate Kubernetes at scale.
Proactively detect & remediate issues in your clusters & workloads.
Easily operate & manage K8s clusters at scale.
Reduce costs without compromising on performance.
Guides, blogs, webinars & tools to help you troubleshoot and scale Kubernetes.
Tips, trends, and lessons from the field.
Practical guides for real-world K8s ops.
How it works, how to run it, and how not to break it.
Short, clear articles on Kubernetes concepts, best practices, and troubleshooting.
Infra stories from teams like yours, brief, honest, and right to the point.
Product-focused clips showing Komodor in action, from drift detection to add‑on support.
Live demos, real use cases, and expert Q&A, all up-to-date.
The missing UI for Helm – a simplified way of working with Helm.
Visualize Crossplane resources and speed up troubleshooting.
Validate, clean & secure your K8s YAMLs.
Navigate the community-driven K8s ecosystem map.
Who we are, and our promise for the future of K8s.
Have a question for us? Write us.
Come aboard the K8s ship – we’re hiring!
Here’s what they’re saying about Komodor in the news.
In the modern software landscape, “reliability” is no longer just about keeping a server online. As we transition from standard web applications to complex, AI-powered ecosystems, the definition of performance has shifted. We are no longer simply moving bytes; we are managing data ingestion, feature engineering, complex model serving, and real-time inference. To run a service of this magnitude, Site Reliability Engineers (SREs) must move beyond basic uptime metrics and adopt a rigorous, mathematical framework for defining quality.
This necessity drives us to clearly define and deliver a specific level of service to every user, whether they are calling an internal AI API or using a public-facing product. By leveraging AI-powered analysis, we can establish a hierarchy of reliability: Service Level Indicators (SLIs), Service Level Objectives (SLOs), and Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
This article explores how to implement this framework specifically for AI/ML ecosystems, detailing how to select the right metrics, avoiding statistical traps, and using “failure injection” to prevent the paradox of over-reliability.
Before diving into the complexities of machine learning pipelines, we must standardize our vocabulary. In everyday technical conversations, the term “SLA” is often used as a catch-all for any discussion regarding reliability or uptime. However, for a successful technical implementation, we must distinguish between three distinct concepts.
An SLI is a quantifiable measure of some aspect of the level of service that is provided. It is a carefully chosen number that reflects the quality of the system at a specific moment in time. While a standard web server might track HTTP 500 errors, an AI system needs indicators that reflect its unique architecture, such as model prediction latency or feature store access times.
An SLO is a target value or range of values for a service level that is measured by an SLI. It transforms a metric into a goal. An SLO typically follows the format: SLI ≤ target or lower bound ≤ SLI ≤ upper bound. For example, an AI service might set an SLO stating that “model prediction latency should be under 50 milliseconds”.
This is where the business side intersects with engineering. An SLA is a contract—formal or informal—with the user that spells out the consequences if the SLOs are not met. These consequences are often financial, such as service credits or refunds. A useful heuristic for engineers is this: if there is no official consequence for missing the target, you are dealing with an SLO, not an SLA.
In a traditional microservice, you might focus heavily on request latency and throughput. In an AI ecosystem, these remain important, but they are insufficient to capture the health of the system.
To select the right SLIs, you must understand the specific role your service plays in the AI hierarchy. Most services fit into one of four categories, each requiring different metrics:
A common mistake in AI monitoring is relying solely on server-side metrics. While easier to collect, server-side data is often a proxy that fails to capture the true user experience. For instance, measuring prediction latency at the server might miss delays caused by the client-side code running the inference or a suboptimal user interface rendering the result.
To bridge this gap, AI SRE teams often employ synthetic clients—automated agents that continually run tests against the system. These agents measure how long it takes for a page or inference to become usable, offering a superior proxy for the actual user experience.
Because AI ecosystems involve many teams—data scientists, ML engineers, backend developers—it is vital to create standard definitions for SLIs. You do not want to debate the basics of measurement during an outage. AI-powered tools can enforce these standards, ensuring consistency in:
Once you have selected your indicators, you must decide how to aggregate the raw data. This is where many teams fail. The default instinct is to use the mean (average), but in AI systems, the mean is often a liar.
AI-powered systems frequently generate heavily skewed data distributions. Consider a batch processing job: it might run instantly for 90% of inputs, but take hours for a complex 10%. In this scenario, the mean and the median are not the same. A simple average request latency could look perfectly flat and healthy, masking the fact that the experience has degraded significantly for a small but important fraction of users.
Therefore, SREs should prioritize percentiles over the mean. You must look at the “long tail” of data points—the 99th or 99.9th percentile. The logic is simple: if the AI-monitored 99.9th percentile behavior is good, you can be mathematically confident that the typical user experience is excellent.
This is an area where AI tools themselves augment SRE practices. Rather than setting static thresholds for alerts, AI-driven anomaly detection can analyze the underlying distribution of system data. It can verify that standard assumptions hold and prevent flawed alert rules that trigger too often (false positives) or not often enough (false negatives).
Setting the target (SLO) is an art form. It requires balancing the desire for perfection with the reality of distributed systems. A key rule is to work backward from what the user actually needs, rather than what is easy to measure.
AI systems often handle mixed workloads that cannot be held to the same standard. It is appropriate, and necessary, to define separate objectives for different classes of work. For example:
Trying to apply the 50ms latency target to a batch training job would be nonsensical, just as allowing a 4-hour delay for a real-time recommendation would be a failure.
It is unrealistic to insist that SLOs will be met 100% of the time. In fact, demanding 100% reliability freezes innovation because every change carries risk. Instead, we use the concept of an Error Budget—a calculated rate at which the system is allowed to miss its SLOs.
AI SRE systems track this budget in real-time. The remaining budget serves as a critical input to the release process. If the budget is full, new models and features can be rolled out. If the budget is exhausted due to recent instability, the release process halts until the system stabilizes.
Based on experience in AI-driven environments, there are several strategic tips for picking targets:
One of the most counterintuitive insights in AI SRE is that a system can be too reliable.
Imagine an internal, AI-managed feature store. Thanks to auto-healing capabilities and preventative maintenance, it almost never goes down. Its reliability effectively becomes 100%. Consequently, application owners who depend on this feature store start building their services with the unreasonable assumption that the feature store will never be unavailable. They stop building retry logic, fallbacks, or cache layers.
This high reliability creates a false sense of security. When a rare, inevitable failure finally occurs—perhaps a network partition or a physical data center issue—the result is catastrophic. Numerous dependent services fail simultaneously because they were not built to withstand even a moment of downtime.
To prevent this fragility, the AI SRE solution is to ensure the system meets—but does not significantly exceed—its service level objective.
If the system’s true availability hasn’t dropped below the target in a given period (meaning the error budget is untouched), the team should engage in failure injection or chaos engineering. An AI-managed tool will intentionally synthesize a controlled outage. This might involve artificially slowing down a data center or introducing a brief network partition.
This forces service owners to confront the reality of distributed systems. It compels them to find and fix unreasonable dependencies immediately, ensuring that when a real disaster strikes, their systems are resilient enough to handle it.
Implementing these metrics allows for the creation of automated “control loops” that govern the system. An AI-driven reliability system typically follows a four-step cycle:
Finally, we arrive at the SLA—the contract. While SRE teams rarely write the legal terms of an SLA, they are crucial partners in drafting them.
SREs provide the high-fidelity data and predictive modeling required to understand the likelihood of meeting specific targets. This helps business and legal teams set terms that are attractive to customers but technically achievable.
A critical strategy in managing SLAs is the safety margin. You should always maintain a tighter internal SLO than the SLA you advertise to users.
For example, if your external SLA guarantees 99.0% availability, your internal SLO should perhaps be 99.5%. This buffer gives the AI SRE system room to detect and respond to chronic problems before they ever become visible enough to breach the external contract.
It is wise to be conservative. It is much harder to retract or lower an overly aggressive SLA once it has been released to a broad user base. If you promise too much and fail, you lose trust. If you promise reliability and consistently deliver slightly better performance, you build a reputation for solidity.
The transition to AI-driven services requires a maturation of reliability engineering. We must move from intuition to data, from averages to percentiles, and from reactive fixing to proactive failure injection.
By carefully selecting SLIs that reflect true user experience (including model quality), setting SLOs that account for heterogeneous workloads and error budgets, and defining SLAs that protect the business, we create a robust framework for success.
However, the most important takeaway is to start simple. Do not try to engineer the perfect set of metrics on day one. Start with a loose target, measure it, and refine it. Use AI to optimize towards a target, but do not chase impossible perfection. In the world of AI SRE, resilience is not about never failing; it is about failing gracefully, recovering instantly, and learning constantly.
Share:
Gain instant visibility into your clusters and resolve issues faster.
