Neophyte23 minutes ago, mnagel said: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).
Agree completely on the process monitoring vs. APM front. I don't see any non-convoluted way to implement this with the base LM platform while making certain it is widely usable by multiple customers, hence us developing our own DataSource to accomplish what we thought was a sensible way to scale process monitoring in LM (but still in a bit of a convoluted way). Insofar as DataDog is concerned, you're absolutely paying a very pretty penny for their services :)/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" title=":)" width="20" />
Insofar as LM Logs is concerned, I think there is merit to the solution -- It's not as intelligent as I would have liked it to be on the Anomaly Detection front, but the ability to align logs with their resources and make them queryable is certainly a significant value-add compared to EventSource. I don't feel it's particularly 'cash grabby' of them to charge for a product that especially has novel/net-new features, particularly when compared to other platforms that already charge for such functionality.
