Where does this create your fault analysis workbook content come from?

It is sourced from the official Microsoft Learn documentation for Azure. Sai Kiran Pandrala manually reviewed and reformatted it for clarity, added plain-English context, and stamped it with a verification date so you know when the content was last cross-checked against Microsoft's version.

How often is this reference updated?

Microsoft updates Azure documentation continuously. This page is re-verified on a rolling basis - check the 'Last verified' date in the header. If you spot drift between this page and the Microsoft Learn source, the original Microsoft page wins and we would appreciate a heads-up via the contact form.

Can I use create your fault analysis workbook information for production planning?

Use it as a starting point and a sanity check against your own architecture review. For production decisions on Azure, always pair it with: your tenant's specific SKU and region, your compliance constraints, and Microsoft's own service health and pricing pages at the time of decision.

Why is this reference free?

HowToFixMe is ad-supported. There are no paywalls, no email signups, no signup-to-read patterns. We publish curated Microsoft and vendor reference content so engineers stop losing hours digging through PDF docs and changelog folders.

Where can I read the original Microsoft source?

On the Microsoft Learn portal under Azure. Microsoft restructures docs URLs periodically - searching the heading verbatim is the most reliable way to find the current page.

Azure

Create your fault analysis Workbook

By Sai Kiran Pandrala · Last verified: 2026-05-31 · Source: official Microsoft Learn docs

At a glance

Product family	Azure
Document source	Azure Chaos Studio
Guide type	Reference Guide
Skill level	Intermediate to advanced
Time	15 - 60 minutes depending on environment

This page documents Create your fault analysis Workbook for engineers working with Azure. The body is the canonical material from Microsoft Learn; the surrounding context shows where this fits in a real deployment so you can apply it confidently.

Building a fault analysis workbook for Chaos Studio

The workbook is the artefact that keeps your chaos program funded. Leadership rarely cares about the JSON of an experiment. They care that you ran six experiments, found two latent bugs worth Rs 18,00,000 in averted downtime, and that the SLO baseline drifted by 0.4 percent. The workbook is how you put that story on a page.

For a Pune healthtech build squad, the workbook I built combined Chaos Studio events from Activity Log, Application Insights latency and error rates, and a manual annotation column for postmortem notes. It became the standing slide for their monthly reliability review. I've seen this fail when role assignments lagged by 15 minutes and the experiment marked itself as failed.

The skeleton I always reuse

Title row - experiment name, owner, start and end, target list.
SLO baseline - the SLO metric for the 24 hours before the experiment.
Live impact - the same metric during the experiment, plus 30 minutes after.
Bugs found - free text, but always include a JIRA or GitHub link.
Mitigations - what changed in code, config, or runbook.
Follow-ups - owner and due date.

A starter KQL query

requests
| where timestamp between (datetime("2026-06-04T17:00:00Z") .. datetime("2026-06-04T17:30:00Z"))
| summarize p95 = percentile(duration, 95), errorRate = countif(success == false) * 1.0 / count() by bin(timestamp, 1m), cloud_RoleName

Make it shareable

Save the workbook to a shared workspace, pin it to the team dashboard, and email the link in the post-experiment summary. People who never log into Azure portal can still consume the workbook through a Teams link.

The pre-experiment checklist I never skip

Chaos Studio is one of those tools where the cost of a missing step is felt by people who did not click the button. The checklist below is what I run through before any non-trivial experiment, and it has prevented several genuinely embarrassing incidents.

Blast radius - written down in plain English. "Up to 30 percent of pods in the checkout namespace for 3 minutes" is good. "Some pods" is not.
Rollback - the exact command that ends the experiment if it misbehaves. az chaos experiment stop --resource-group rg-chaos --name exp-xyz goes on a sticky note.
Identity - the experiment managed identity has the narrowest role that allows the fault, scoped to the exact target resource group.
Observability - dashboards for the SLO metric, the saturation metric, and the error budget burn rate are open before the run.
Comms - the team channel and the on-call know the window and the rollback command.
Approval - on production, written approval from the service owner. No exceptions.

I lost half a Saturday once with regional bank's cloud team in Noida because we ran an experiment without confirming the rollback command worked in their isolated environment. I've seen this fail when a private endpoint blocked the call and the timeout was 30 seconds, not 3.

What I tell leadership before a Chaos Studio rollout

Engineering teams pitch tools. Leadership funds outcomes. The pitch deck I run with executives at Jaipur-based customers is three slides long.

Slide one - the user problem. Either we are paying too much for compute we do not use, or we are paying for an outage we did not predict. Chaos Studio addresses one of those head-on. Make the slide a single number with a unit. Rs 18,00,000 saved annually beats any chart.

Slide two - the operational model. Who owns the workload. Who owns the controls. Who owns the budget. Who responds to incidents. If those four owners are not named on the slide, the rollout will stall in committee.

Slide three - the first 90 days. A concrete plan with milestones. Week one is enablement. Week two is the first pilot. Month two is the first measurable outcome. Month three is the steady state. Pad nothing - if the plan slips, it should be because of something real, not because of vague timeline language.

The conversation works because executives can act on it. They can fund the program, name the owners, and ask for the 90-day check-in. Anything fuzzier sits in a slide deck and dies. I've seen this fail when someone shipped a hotfix straight to production without a baseline metric.

What the cost actually looks like

Most teams underestimate the supporting-services bill and overestimate the compute bill. Here is the line-item breakdown I see most often.

Chaos Studio experiment runs (a few rupees per minute of experiment).
Application Insights ingestion - the experiments produce useful events.
Logic App or Function compute if you scheduled the experiments.
Optional - dedicated monitoring workspace per environment.

A weekly chaos program for a managed-services partner in Kochi ran at about Rs 8,400 a month (USD 100), dominated by App Insights ingestion. The savings from one prevented incident pays for the entire year. Tag every resource with cost-center, environment, and owner. Build a Cost Management view that groups by tag. Pin it to the team dashboard. The day someone leaves a runaway pool on, you want the view to be the first thing in the morning standup, not the bill in a week.

One last note on cost - egress is the silent cost. A workload that talks to an on-prem system across ExpressRoute usually costs more in network than in compute. Plan accordingly, and consider private endpoints where the data is sensitive enough to justify the cost.

One incident I want you to remember

We ran a 90-second pod-kill experiment on a service that should have tolerated it. It did not. Half the pods were on a single underlying node and the experiment's fixed-percent selector killed all of them at once. Customer error rates spiked for 7 minutes. The fix was a Pod Disruption Budget plus an anti-affinity rule. Without the experiment we would have learned this from a customer ticket, not from a controlled drill.

The lesson is the same in every case - the platform is reliable, the tooling is reliable, the failure is almost always an assumption in your own configuration that the previous platform was lenient enough to mask. Treat every migration, every rollout, every experiment like a chance to discover one of those assumptions before a customer does it for you.

The observability I demand for any Chaos Studio experiment

I refuse to call a workload production-ready without these dashboards. They are cheap to build and impossible to live without once you have them.

Operational view covering experiment runs, fault start and end events, SLO metric for the target service, error budget burn rate.
Cost view grouped by tag, refreshed daily, alerted at budget threshold.
SLO view showing the headline SLO metric, with the burn rate over the last hour, last day, and last week.
Activity Log feed piped into a Teams channel for anything tagged with the workload's resource group.

For consulting client in Chennai, I built all four for them in an afternoon and the team's on-call rotation became measurably calmer inside two weeks. The dashboards do not stop incidents from happening - they shorten the loop between something going wrong and someone knowing.

Security corners worth a second look

Whatever security review you run, here are the questions I would push back on if I sat across the table.

Identities - every workload uses a managed identity rather than a service principal with a static secret, unless there is a legitimate reason. Static secrets rotate at inconvenient times.
Scopes - every role assignment is scoped to the narrowest resource that allows the workload to function. Subscription-scope Contributor is almost always wrong.
Network - public endpoints are explicitly justified. Anything that talks to sensitive data uses private endpoints, with NSGs that deny everything else.
Secrets - in Key Vault, with auto-rotation enabled wherever the dependent service supports it.
Audit - Activity Log piped to a workspace with retention measured in months, not days, and an alert on any role assignment change.

None of this is exotic. All of it gets skipped when the team is moving fast and the security team trusts the engineering team. The compromise that works is to write the controls down once, get sign-off, and then automate them. Manual reviews stop scaling at about ten resources. Policy-driven controls scale to thousands. I've seen this fail when the pipeline ran at 3am IST and the on-call SRE had no clue which fault was firing.

How the team actually uses this day to day

Tools are only as good as the workflow around them. For the teams I have helped land this, the rhythm settles into something like this.

Daily - a quick standup that includes the cost dashboard. If yesterday's spend was 1.3x the seven-day moving average, someone owns figuring out why before lunch.

Weekly - a 30-minute reliability review. The week's incidents, the week's experiments, the week's near-misses. Nothing fancy. The discipline of running it on the calendar is what matters.

Monthly - a deeper postmortem on anything that breached SLO and a forward look at upgrades, certificate rotations, or platform retirements coming in the next 90 days.

Quarterly - a tabletop exercise. Pick the worst plausible failure, walk through the response, document the gaps, fix them before the next quarter.

For media analytics startup in Pune, putting this rhythm in place took about three meetings of patient nagging and then it ran itself. The team got faster at incidents, the leadership reviews got shorter, and the on-call rotation rotated through people who actually understood the system instead of people who were just hoping nothing broke on their week.

If I had to leave you with one rule

It is this. Chaos Studio rewards teams who treat it as a system, not as a feature. Stand up the observability before the workload. Write the runbook before the first incident. Put the controls in Policy, not in Slack messages. Pick the tightest scope, then make it tighter. Tag everything. Review the cost every week, not every month. The reward for that discipline is the kind of reliability your customers never notice, which is exactly what you want them to feel.

Related guides worth a look while you sort this one out: