When was the last time you knew — not just hoped — that your disaster recovery plan would work perfectly?
For most of us, the answer is unclear. Sure, you may have a DR plan, a meticulously crafted document stored in a wiki or a shared drive, that gets dusted off for compliance audits or the occasional tabletop drill. You assume its procedures are correct, its contact lists are current, and its dependencies are fully mapped, and you certainly hope it works.
Why wouldn’t it work? One problem is that systems are rarely static anymore. In a world where you deploy new microservices dozens of times per day, make constant configuration changes, and maintain an ever-growing web of third-party API dependencies, the DR pl…
When was the last time you knew — not just hoped — that your disaster recovery plan would work perfectly?
For most of us, the answer is unclear. Sure, you may have a DR plan, a meticulously crafted document stored in a wiki or a shared drive, that gets dusted off for compliance audits or the occasional tabletop drill. You assume its procedures are correct, its contact lists are current, and its dependencies are fully mapped, and you certainly hope it works.
Why wouldn’t it work? One problem is that systems are rarely static anymore. In a world where you deploy new microservices dozens of times per day, make constant configuration changes, and maintain an ever-growing web of third-party API dependencies, the DR plan you wrote last quarter is probably just as useful as one from 10 years ago.
And if the failover does work, will it work well enough to meet the promises you’ve made to your customers (or board of directors or regulators)? When a key component fails, could you still even meet your target availability and latency targets, a.k.a., your Service Level Objectives (SLOs)?
So, how do you close this gap between your current aspirational DR plan and a DR plan that you actually have confidence in? The answer isn’t to write more documents or run more theatrical drills. The answer is to stop assuming and start proving.
This is where chaos engineering comes in. Unlike what the name might imply, chaos engineering isn’t a tool for recklessly breaking things. Instead, it’s a framework that provides data-driven confidence in your SLOs under stress. By running controlled experiments that simulate real-world disasters like a database failover or a regional outage, you can quantitatively measure the impact of those failures on your systems’ performance. Chaos engineering is how you transform your DR hypotheses into a proven method to ensure resilience. By validating your plan through experimentation, you create tangible evidence, verifying that your plan will safeguard your infrastructure and keep your promises to customers.
Demystifying chaos engineering
In a nutshell, chaos engineering is the practice of running controlled, scientific experiments to find weaknesses in your system before they cause a real outage.
At its core, it’s about building confidence in your system’s resilience. The process starts with understanding your system’s steady state, which is its normal, measurable, and healthy output. You can’t know the true impact of a failure without first defining what "good" looks like. This understanding allows you to form a clear, testable hypothesis: a statement of belief that your system’s steady state will persist even when a specific, turbulent condition is introduced.
To test this hypothesis, you then execute a controlled action, which is a precise and targeted failure injected into the system. This isn’t random mischief; it’s a specific simulation of real-world failures, such as consuming all CPU on a host (resource exhaustion), adding network latency (network failure), or terminating a virtual machine (state failure). While this action is running, automated probes act as your scientific instruments, continuously monitoring the system’s state to measure the effect.
Together, these components form a complete scientific loop: you use a hypothesis to predict resilience, run an experiment by applying an action to simulate adversity, and use probes to measure the impact, turning uncertainty into hard data.
Using chaos to validate disaster recovery plans
Now that you understand the building blocks of a chaos experiment, you can build the bridge to your ultimate goal: transforming your DR plan from a document of hope into an evidence-based procedure. The key is to stop seeing your DR plan as a set of instructions and start seeing it for what it truly is: a collection of unproven hypotheses.
When you think about it, every significant statement in your DR document is a claim waiting to be tested. When your plan states, "The database will failover to the replica in under 5 minutes," that isn’t a fact, it’s a hypothesis. When it says, "In the event of a regional outage, traffic will be successfully rerouted to the secondary region," that’s another hypothesis. Your DR plan is filled with these critical assumptions about how your system should behave under duress. Until you test them, they remain nothing more than educated guesses.
Chaos experiments are the ultimate validation tools, live-fire drills that put your DR hypotheses to a real, empirical test. Instead of just talking through a scenario, you use controlled actions to safely and precisely simulate the disaster. You’re no longer asking "what if?"; you’re actively measuring "what happens when."
For example, imagine you have a DR plan for a regional outage. When you adopt chaos engineering, you break down that plan into a hypothesis and an experiment. For example:
The hypothesis: "In case our primary region us-central1 becomes unreachable, the load balancers will failover all traffic to us-east1 within 3 minutes, with an error rate below 1%."
The chaos experiment: Run an action that simulates a regional outage by injecting a "blackhole" that drops all network traffic to and from us-central1 for a limited time. Your probes then measure the actual failover time and error rates to validate the hypothesis.
In other words, by applying the chaos engineering methodology, you systematically move through your DR plan, turning each assumption into a proven fact. You’re not just testing your plan; you’re forging it in a controlled fire.
Connecting chaos readiness to your SLOs
Beyond simply proving system availability, chaos engineering builds trust in your reliability metrics, ensuring that you meet your SLOs even when services become unavailable. An SLO is a specific, acceptable target level of your service’s performance measured over a specified period that reflects the user’s experience. SLOs aren’t just internal goals; they are the bedrock of customer trust and the foundation of your contractual service level agreements (SLAs).
A traditional DR drill might get a "pass" because the backup system came online. But what if it took 20 minutes to fail over, during which every user saw errors? What if the backup region was under-provisioned, and performance became so slow that the service was unusable? From a technical perspective, you "recovered." But from a customer’s perspective, you were down.
A chaos experiment, however, can help you answer a critical question: **"During a failover, did we still meet our SLOs?” **Because your probes are constantly measuring performance against your SLOs, you get the full picture. You don’t just see that the database failed over; you see that it took 7 minutes, during which your latency SLO was breached and your error budget was completely burned. This is the crucial, game-changing insight. It shifts the entire goal from simple disaster recovery to SLO preservation, which is what actually determines if a failure was a minor hiccup or a major business-impacting incident. It also provides the data necessary to set goals for system improvement. So the next time you run this experiment, you can measure if and how much your system resilience has improved, and ultimately if you can maintain your SLO during the disaster event.
Build a culture of confidence
The journey to resilience doesn’t start by simulating a full regional failover. It starts with a single, small experiment. The goal is not to boil the ocean; it’s to build momentum. Test one timeout, one retry mechanism, or one graceful error message.
The biggest win from your first successful experiment won’t be the technical data you gather. It will be the confidence you build. When your team sees that they can safely inject failure, learn from it, and improve the system, their entire relationship with failure changes. Fear is replaced by curiosity. That confidence is the catalyst for building a true, enduring culture of resilience. To learn more and get started with chaos engineering, check out this blog and this podcast. And if you’re ready to get started, but unsure how, reach out to Google Cloud professional services to discuss how we can help.
Posted in