CASE STUDIES · FIELD REPORTS

How I approach real infrastructure problems.

Not a list of projects — a record of method. Each case is documented like an engineering field report: the problem, the investigation, the architecture, and how the result was verified.

◆ 02THE ARCHIVEFIELD REPORTS

The archive.

Detailed field reports are being prepared. Each will follow the same engineering format — the one applied in full to the representative report below. Nothing here is fabricated: figures arrive with the real records.

FR/01 · REPRESENTATIVE FIELD REPORTREV CSample structure

A growing business running everything on one ageing server.

A representative reconstruction of a common engagement — used here to show the full report format. Real client reports, with their own architecture and figures, will replace it.

Domain
Servers → Cloud
Role
Lead engineer
Systems
Web · DB · Mail · Backup
Outcome
Stability & scale
◆ 04ARCHITECTURE · BEFORE → AFTERTOGGLE TO COMPARE

The system, before and after.

The same business, re-architected from a single fragile server into a resilient, observable environment. Toggle to compare — new, redundant systems are highlighted.

Architecture map● LEGACY

Before — the risks

Everything on one server — a single point of failure.
No monitoring — problems were found by customers first.
Manual, unverified backups.
No room to scale for growth or traffic spikes.

After — the resilience

Edge protection and caching in front of the origin.
Web and application separated and independently scalable.
Managed, replicated database with automated, tested backups.
Full monitoring and alerting across the environment.
◆ 05METHOD · INVESTIGATION → INTERVENTIONHOW THE WORK HAPPENED

Understand first. Change carefully. Verify everything.

01 Investigate
02 Approach
03 Implement

Every step is reversible. Nothing goes live until it has been verified.

01 · Investigation

Understand the system before touching anything.

First I map what's actually running and what depends on what — so nothing is a surprise later.

Inventory of services, traffic patterns and failure points; log and resource analysis; a documented picture of the current state and its real risks.

discoverylog analysisdependency maprisk audit
02 · Approach

Design for the failure modes, not just the features.

The target architecture removes the single points of failure and makes the system observable.

Separate concerns (edge, web, app, data), add redundancy where it matters, make backups automatic and tested, and put monitoring on everything — all cost-aware.

target architectureredundancycost-awareobservability
03 · Implementation

Migrate carefully, with a way back.

The move happens in rehearsed steps, with a rollback path ready at every stage.

Provision the new environment, sync data, rehearse the cutover, validate, then switch behind the edge — with the option to roll back instantly if anything looks wrong.

rehearsed cutoverdata syncrollback pathDNS
◆ 06VALIDATION & OUTCOMEHOW IT WAS VERIFIED

A result isn't real until it's verified.

How it was validated

Load-tested against realistic peak traffic before go-live.
Backup restores rehearsed end-to-end — not just taken.
Cutover rehearsed with a tested rollback path.
Monitored closely for regressions after switch-over.

Outcome Figures pending real data

ReliabilityStable through peak — figures pending
PerformanceFaster response — figures pending
Downtime at cutoverNone — rehearsed cutover
VisibilityFull monitoring in place
◆ 07LESSONTHE PRINCIPLE
What it comes down to
Modernise the failure modes, not just the hardware.

New servers on the same fragile design fail the same way. The real work is removing the ways a system can quietly break — and making sure you'd know if it did.

◆ 08 — YOUR REPORT

Have an infrastructure story that needs a better ending?

Tell me where it stands today — I'll investigate, document it, and take it somewhere reliable.

SYSTEMS NOMINAL · READY WHEN YOU ARE