Skip to main content

Interoperability Will Change Everything - Including APM

The Impact of AMQP on Application Performance Management

At JPMorgan Chase & Co. headquarters in New York last week, the world's most influential investment banks and software companies unleashed a disruptive new technology that will change enterprise software and application performance monitoring forever.

This new technology is an open, interoperable protocol for business messaging called the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol - AMQP 1.0. It's disruptive because it allows anyone to build the kinds of powerful applications that only investment banks could afford to build – and to do it quickly, without specialized programming skills.

AMQP 1.0 allows ordinary companies to automate complex business processes, just like investment and trading banks do, without writing applications from scratch or investing in lengthy integration projects. You can source services and components from any vendor or service provider and confidently assemble them into new applications that are both highly capable and highly reliable.

Imagine a new smartphone app that gives your sales force complete visibility into your distributed supply chain so they can delight your customers by telling them exactly when they'll receive their order. Imagine connecting cloud-based services, components from multiple vendors, and your own business logic into a seamless, flexible application environment that you could never afford to build on your own.

APM in a Brave New World

Now, imagine trying to manage application performance in this brave new world with your existing tools ...

- Traditional instrumentation approaches (where you drop agents on servers) won't provide the coverage you need across dozens of diverse platforms and components you don't control.

- Traditional measurement techniques (where the APM system monitors “units of work” within each application component) won't work when the internals of the various services are opaque or inaccessible.

- Traditional application models (where you can divide things neatly into 3 or 4 tiers) won't handle the complexity and dynamic transaction flows in highly-distributed applications.

Here's what will work: A new approach to application performance monitoring that embraces and manages the complexity that interoperability creates. Your requirements list should include:

- Vendor and service provider agnostic instrumentation mechanisms. Meeting this requirement is easy using network-based packet capture approaches, as AMQP 1.0 is an open, standard protocol that can be seen on the network.

- Measurement techniques that analyze the external behaviour of a component instead of its internal workings. Meeting this requirement involves analyzing, and more importantly, understanding the application layer information. And now, we have our first point of tension. Very few network-based monitoring systems can cope with the complex syntax and semantics found in the application layer. But, application-based systems can't fulfill the first requirement.

- Rapid navigation through the various hops and layers of complex transaction flows to allow rapid identification of slow and failing components. Fulfilling this requirement demands a multi-hop transaction correlation capability commonly found in Business Transaction Management solutions. And now, we have our second point of tension. Very few BTM systems monitor at the network layer.

- Ready access to real-time performance data that you can feed into event management and automation systems. Meeting this requirement demands an APM system that can handle several orders of magnitude more processing than any single application component. If your application has 5 transaction hops and runs at 500 transactions per second, your APM system has to handle 2,500 transactions per second and a minimum of 10,000 messages per second for simple request/response transactions. And now, we have our third point of tension. Very few APM systems are designed to handle this kind of volume.

So as you start matching your list of requirements to the available products, you'll quickly realize that most APM systems are designed for different applications than the ones you want to build using AMQP. They're designed for tightly coupled three tier web applications, proprietary mainframe messaging applications, or Java-based OLTP applications. They aren't designed for highly-distributed, multi-vendor applications. A new, transaction-centric approach to APM is needed to monitor AMQP-based applications.

Interoperability will change everything. Including APM.

For more information on AMQP 1.0, check out this video from Loki Jorgenson, INETCO's Chief Scientist:

About Marc Borbas

Marc Borbas is the Vice President of Marketing for INETCO. In his role, he sets product strategy for INETCO Insight, the company's flagship business transaction management product. Borbas was a catalyst behind INETCO's adoption of AMQP 1.0 within the core architecture of the INETCO Insight real-time transaction monitoring product.

Borbas has worked in the applications and infrastructure software space for more than 12 years, and has an extensive background in marketing, business strategy and product development at Sophos, Business Objects (now SAP), Crystal Decisions, and Fincentric Corporation.

Related Links:

www.inetco.com

www.amqp.org

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.

Interoperability Will Change Everything - Including APM

The Impact of AMQP on Application Performance Management

At JPMorgan Chase & Co. headquarters in New York last week, the world's most influential investment banks and software companies unleashed a disruptive new technology that will change enterprise software and application performance monitoring forever.

This new technology is an open, interoperable protocol for business messaging called the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol - AMQP 1.0. It's disruptive because it allows anyone to build the kinds of powerful applications that only investment banks could afford to build – and to do it quickly, without specialized programming skills.

AMQP 1.0 allows ordinary companies to automate complex business processes, just like investment and trading banks do, without writing applications from scratch or investing in lengthy integration projects. You can source services and components from any vendor or service provider and confidently assemble them into new applications that are both highly capable and highly reliable.

Imagine a new smartphone app that gives your sales force complete visibility into your distributed supply chain so they can delight your customers by telling them exactly when they'll receive their order. Imagine connecting cloud-based services, components from multiple vendors, and your own business logic into a seamless, flexible application environment that you could never afford to build on your own.

APM in a Brave New World

Now, imagine trying to manage application performance in this brave new world with your existing tools ...

- Traditional instrumentation approaches (where you drop agents on servers) won't provide the coverage you need across dozens of diverse platforms and components you don't control.

- Traditional measurement techniques (where the APM system monitors “units of work” within each application component) won't work when the internals of the various services are opaque or inaccessible.

- Traditional application models (where you can divide things neatly into 3 or 4 tiers) won't handle the complexity and dynamic transaction flows in highly-distributed applications.

Here's what will work: A new approach to application performance monitoring that embraces and manages the complexity that interoperability creates. Your requirements list should include:

- Vendor and service provider agnostic instrumentation mechanisms. Meeting this requirement is easy using network-based packet capture approaches, as AMQP 1.0 is an open, standard protocol that can be seen on the network.

- Measurement techniques that analyze the external behaviour of a component instead of its internal workings. Meeting this requirement involves analyzing, and more importantly, understanding the application layer information. And now, we have our first point of tension. Very few network-based monitoring systems can cope with the complex syntax and semantics found in the application layer. But, application-based systems can't fulfill the first requirement.

- Rapid navigation through the various hops and layers of complex transaction flows to allow rapid identification of slow and failing components. Fulfilling this requirement demands a multi-hop transaction correlation capability commonly found in Business Transaction Management solutions. And now, we have our second point of tension. Very few BTM systems monitor at the network layer.

- Ready access to real-time performance data that you can feed into event management and automation systems. Meeting this requirement demands an APM system that can handle several orders of magnitude more processing than any single application component. If your application has 5 transaction hops and runs at 500 transactions per second, your APM system has to handle 2,500 transactions per second and a minimum of 10,000 messages per second for simple request/response transactions. And now, we have our third point of tension. Very few APM systems are designed to handle this kind of volume.

So as you start matching your list of requirements to the available products, you'll quickly realize that most APM systems are designed for different applications than the ones you want to build using AMQP. They're designed for tightly coupled three tier web applications, proprietary mainframe messaging applications, or Java-based OLTP applications. They aren't designed for highly-distributed, multi-vendor applications. A new, transaction-centric approach to APM is needed to monitor AMQP-based applications.

Interoperability will change everything. Including APM.

For more information on AMQP 1.0, check out this video from Loki Jorgenson, INETCO's Chief Scientist:

About Marc Borbas

Marc Borbas is the Vice President of Marketing for INETCO. In his role, he sets product strategy for INETCO Insight, the company's flagship business transaction management product. Borbas was a catalyst behind INETCO's adoption of AMQP 1.0 within the core architecture of the INETCO Insight real-time transaction monitoring product.

Borbas has worked in the applications and infrastructure software space for more than 12 years, and has an extensive background in marketing, business strategy and product development at Sophos, Business Objects (now SAP), Crystal Decisions, and Fincentric Corporation.

Related Links:

www.inetco.com

www.amqp.org

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.