Skip to main content

Can APM Really Handle Serverless? - Part 2

Chris Farrell

The "APM" solutions we've come to love over the last 2 decades can't handle Serverless Functions or deliver the same performance and operational details that they deliver for other architectural constructs — including App Servers, Frameworks, Cloud, even Containers. And the reason is that they're methodologies for collecting performance data simply won't operate with the same characteristics as it would in persistent code.

Start with: Can APM Really Handle Serverless? - Part 1

And Then There's "Observability"

There are three ways conventional tools deliver service performance data to your monitoring tools:

1. API built into the platform — the consummate example of this is Lambda and Xray. This at least provides some level of performance detail, but it's nowhere near the richness and depth DevOps teams are used to (or need). PLUS: X-Ray provides data about the specific instance, AND ONLY the specific instance; but applications are distributed connected things — getting information about a single service without any knowledge of connected systems doesn't help understand what is getting in the way of distributed performance issues.

2. Pre-instrument the code — Like the way that some application monitoring tools tackled the container incompatibility issue, you could always run the code through an instrumentation step. While this allows the APM solution to get its hooks into the code, it loses the benefit of years of technology advancement in real-time instrumentation which allows decisions to be made on how much (or how little) to measure.

3. Open Source Observability — one or more of the observability APIs could always be put into place — of course, this requires some, if not a ton of, developer time to put the API instrumentation into their code:

■ Deciding what to instrument

■ Selecting which metrics to provide

■ Coding it in

■ Identifying those metrics for the tool

■ Selecting a visualization (If possible)

■ Analyzing logs for serverless events

All three of these approaches actually run counter to the value and efficiency promise of using Serverless Functions in a distributed application.

Option (1) simply doesn't have the juice to provide the detailed information needed for complex applications — and ZERO information about distributed functions, their dependencies (upstream and downstream) with other services, and no context or understanding of traces or end users to examine performance against.

(2) and (3) have similar visibility problems, depending on how much instrumentation is turned on and how much time you're willing to invest in your developers writing performance monitoring instead of their functional code. However, even though those decision points aren't trivial, the real problem comes in the way of cost and performance overhead.

After all, regardless of whether you load code pre-instrumented with a tool or code that your developers added monitoring lines of code, you are essentially operating at 10, 20, even 50% more code, cycles, overhead and cost than just your functional code. Replicate that overhead enough times and not only are you impacting your user service levels, you're blowing through all your serverless "savings" by paying for additional non-functional code.

There Are Options

Look, all is not doom and gloom. There are methods and ways to get the performance data you need across your distributed application, without blowing your budget or your error budget. Look for non-traditional APM tools that don't rely on either legacy instrumentation methods OR open source observability (BONUS, though, if the tool can actually run its own monitoring AND support observability instrumentation).

The key to these tools is that they're more intricately connected with the serverless infrastructure than a legacy APM tool might have. Good news — this means that there are solutions out there that can instrument serverless on the fly, using their connections with the infrastructure. Bad news — if the tool and infrastructure don't match up, you're back to square one. Sometimes that means you may change your infrastructure choice — and sometimes, that means you have to go with the basic instance-based metrics — and use your EUM to the best of your ability.

Anyway, don't be discouraged by this. You can still effectively use Serverless functions to create a more cost effective and efficient multi-cloud application ... and you don't necessarily have to give up that application visibility you've become accustomed to seeing. You will have to check (up front, hopefully) that you have the right tools and right infrastructure to do both. Happy Serverlessing!!!!

Hot Topics

The Latest

In live financial environments, capital markets software cannot pause for rebuilds. New capabilities are introduced as stacked technology layers to meet evolving demands while systems remain active, data keeps moving, and controls stay intact. AI is no exception, and its opportunities are significant: accelerated decision cycles, compressed manual workflows, and more effective operations across complex environments. The constraint isn't the models themselves, but the architectural environments they enter ...

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

Can APM Really Handle Serverless? - Part 2

Chris Farrell

The "APM" solutions we've come to love over the last 2 decades can't handle Serverless Functions or deliver the same performance and operational details that they deliver for other architectural constructs — including App Servers, Frameworks, Cloud, even Containers. And the reason is that they're methodologies for collecting performance data simply won't operate with the same characteristics as it would in persistent code.

Start with: Can APM Really Handle Serverless? - Part 1

And Then There's "Observability"

There are three ways conventional tools deliver service performance data to your monitoring tools:

1. API built into the platform — the consummate example of this is Lambda and Xray. This at least provides some level of performance detail, but it's nowhere near the richness and depth DevOps teams are used to (or need). PLUS: X-Ray provides data about the specific instance, AND ONLY the specific instance; but applications are distributed connected things — getting information about a single service without any knowledge of connected systems doesn't help understand what is getting in the way of distributed performance issues.

2. Pre-instrument the code — Like the way that some application monitoring tools tackled the container incompatibility issue, you could always run the code through an instrumentation step. While this allows the APM solution to get its hooks into the code, it loses the benefit of years of technology advancement in real-time instrumentation which allows decisions to be made on how much (or how little) to measure.

3. Open Source Observability — one or more of the observability APIs could always be put into place — of course, this requires some, if not a ton of, developer time to put the API instrumentation into their code:

■ Deciding what to instrument

■ Selecting which metrics to provide

■ Coding it in

■ Identifying those metrics for the tool

■ Selecting a visualization (If possible)

■ Analyzing logs for serverless events

All three of these approaches actually run counter to the value and efficiency promise of using Serverless Functions in a distributed application.

Option (1) simply doesn't have the juice to provide the detailed information needed for complex applications — and ZERO information about distributed functions, their dependencies (upstream and downstream) with other services, and no context or understanding of traces or end users to examine performance against.

(2) and (3) have similar visibility problems, depending on how much instrumentation is turned on and how much time you're willing to invest in your developers writing performance monitoring instead of their functional code. However, even though those decision points aren't trivial, the real problem comes in the way of cost and performance overhead.

After all, regardless of whether you load code pre-instrumented with a tool or code that your developers added monitoring lines of code, you are essentially operating at 10, 20, even 50% more code, cycles, overhead and cost than just your functional code. Replicate that overhead enough times and not only are you impacting your user service levels, you're blowing through all your serverless "savings" by paying for additional non-functional code.

There Are Options

Look, all is not doom and gloom. There are methods and ways to get the performance data you need across your distributed application, without blowing your budget or your error budget. Look for non-traditional APM tools that don't rely on either legacy instrumentation methods OR open source observability (BONUS, though, if the tool can actually run its own monitoring AND support observability instrumentation).

The key to these tools is that they're more intricately connected with the serverless infrastructure than a legacy APM tool might have. Good news — this means that there are solutions out there that can instrument serverless on the fly, using their connections with the infrastructure. Bad news — if the tool and infrastructure don't match up, you're back to square one. Sometimes that means you may change your infrastructure choice — and sometimes, that means you have to go with the basic instance-based metrics — and use your EUM to the best of your ability.

Anyway, don't be discouraged by this. You can still effectively use Serverless functions to create a more cost effective and efficient multi-cloud application ... and you don't necessarily have to give up that application visibility you've become accustomed to seeing. You will have to check (up front, hopefully) that you have the right tools and right infrastructure to do both. Happy Serverlessing!!!!

Hot Topics

The Latest

In live financial environments, capital markets software cannot pause for rebuilds. New capabilities are introduced as stacked technology layers to meet evolving demands while systems remain active, data keeps moving, and controls stay intact. AI is no exception, and its opportunities are significant: accelerated decision cycles, compressed manual workflows, and more effective operations across complex environments. The constraint isn't the models themselves, but the architectural environments they enter ...

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.