How to display full or short process name in LM

21 hours ago, mnagel said:

We just had a demo presented on APM to one of our clients

It's a nice dream. Execution is still very immature. LM keeps using the word "platform", but i'm not sure any of the management has gotten an engineer to draw a picture of what the LM "platform" would really look like. 

On 11/23/2022 at 7:15 PM, mnagel said:

I was saddened to find that the developers rejected this fix to allow for optional argument matching, claiming it represents a desire on my part for "a wide reaching application monitoring solution".  I feel like they have perhaps hit their collective heads, but I have no option but to never import that module again.  And before anyone says "CSM" -- been there, no help (no response actually).

I have two DataSources I've attempted to put up on the Exchange that use Regular Expression to pick and choose with processes one monitors -- we've leveraged it to a large degree of success so far, and was the only favorable way I could find to leverage process monitoring via SNMP at scale. Here are the locator codes:

JDCMLM (SNMP version)
9YLFYE (SSH version)

These are presently under Security review (and have been since I uploaded them September 07, 2022), so I don't know if they're actually visible on the Exchange. Maybe @Stuart Weenigcan enlighten us to whether or not they're viewable while in Security Review ?

I will say that, as a matter of principle, checking process health by whether it's running or not really isn't appropriate -- it should only be viewed as a stop-gap. Querying the processes directly for their health is 100% the only correct path to take (though not always available). Anyone who argues that this type of monitoring constitutes 'wide-reaching application monitoring solution' really doesn't have an understanding as to what 'application monitoring' actually means, and I, too, would strongly question their motivation for making such an argument. 

I'm no longer at LM. I don't have visibility into that anymore. Besides, the only visibility I had was to ping @Michael Rodrigues

2 hours ago, Austin Culbertson said:

Anyone who argues that this type of monitoring constitutes 'wide-reaching application monitoring solution' really doesn't have an understanding as to what 'application monitoring' actually means, and I, too, would strongly question their motivation for making such an argument. 

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.

2 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).

28 minutes ago, Stuart Weenig said:

I'm no longer at LM. I don't have visibility into that anymore. Besides, the only visibility I had was to ping @Michael Rodrigues

Oh, well then! Congratulations upon your career development, then! :)/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x" title=":)" width="20" /> 

23 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.