There have recently been a spate of articles and blogs that are attempting to create a contest between “Network Performance Management” tools and “Application Performance Management” tools. This includes a Network Computing survey that finds fault with APM solutions, and a SOA World Magazine comparison that tries to compare the two types of solutions. This is silly and unproductive. It is far more productive to approach this problem from the perspectives of what your needs and applications look like.
Articles Tagged with Application Performance Management
What exactly is the point of monitoring your infrastructure and your applications? Hopefully your answer to that question is not to just ensure that your network latency is low, that your servers are up, and that you are not about to run out of memory on a server, or hard disk space on an array. Hopefully your answer is that the end goal of monitoring your environment and your applications is to ensure that the applications that comprise your critical business services (to your internal and external constituents) are performing within the expectations of those constituents.
In “Comparing the Different Approaches to Application Performance Management for Virtualized and Cloud based Environments” we compared the different approaches to implementing APM for applications residing in virtualized and cloud based environments. In this post we take a deeper look at the key vendors in the space, and compare their offerings. The purpose of this deeper look is to help you decide which ones to put on your short list for further evaluation.
The infrastructure monitoring, application monitoring, cloud management and image provision sectors of the virtualization management space have been going through an extremely rapid evolution in the last few months. This makes it useful to take a look at these four aspects of virtualization management (leaving out security and data protection) in the context of each other.
In, “Is it Time to Reorganize Data Center Operations“, we proposed the IT Operations be reorganized into “Virtual Operations”, where all of the teams that were responsible for resources supporting Virtual Operations (System Engineering, Servers, LAN’s, WAN’s, SAN and Storage) all reported to one person who was responsible for ensuring the delivery of viable virtual environment. In the same post, we proposed that how applications are supported in production, get reorganized into “Application Operations” where there would be one team responsible for the operation of all applications (purchased and custom developed).
For quite some time we have taken the position that in order for the next 60% of the workloads and applications to get virtualized, that the staff operating the virtual environment is going to have to take responsibility for the performance and availability of the applications running on that infrastructure. The logic behind this is simple. If you want someone who owns a performance critical application to give up their dedicated hardware and move into a shared service environment, you are going to have to guarantee the performance of their application to them in order to be allowed to virtualize that application.