Professor2 minutes ago, Stuart Weenig said:It's a money grab. LM APM is a different license bucket with different costs. They're trying to draw the line between infrastructure monitoring and application monitoring. I'm curious (DM me) about your thoughts because I had thought that individual process monitoring should be done on a deeper level, a la APM. Some of it is LM's origins as a device monitoring system. Multi-instance was probably only thought of for cases of interfaces, drives, etc., not something that can be as ephemeral as processes.
Basic process monitoring is not APM -- it includes liveness, memory usage, CPU usage -- global info about a process, and that should be part of LM core features in a non-buggy way. APM involves collecting telemetry data, code instrumentation, etc. so you can trace what is happening within the application (e.g, database queries, file access, etc.). Agreed it is a money grab, like LM Logs was the solution to replace the horribly "designed" event source system, but for additional $$, which the venture capitalists insist on.
I just looked at Data Dog again, since that was where my client who ran screaming from LM after the APM demo decided to move and they have a super-granular cloud-like cost model. Not a fan, but I guess anyone who uses AWS, Azure, etc. is used to it. I am sure it is far superior, but my brief foray into it a year ago to see if we could move away from LM left me cold as far as network monitoring (at the time anyway).
