Synthetic vs Real-User Monitoring: A Response to Gartner

image_pdfimage_print

AvailabilityRecently Jonah Kowall of Gartner released a research note titled “Use Synthetic Monitoring to Measure Availability and Real-User Monitoring for Performance”. After reading this paper I had some thoughts that I wanted to share based upon my experience as a Monitoring Architect (and certifiable performance geek) working within large enterprise organizations. I highly recommend reading the research note as the information and findings contained within are spot on and highlight important differences between Synthetic and Real-User Monitoring as applied to availability and performance.

My Apps Are Not All 24×7

During my time working at a top 10 Investment Bank I came across many different applications with varying service level requirements. I say they were requirements because there were rarely ever any agreements or contracts in place, usually just an organizational understanding of how important each application was to the business and the expected service level. Many of the applications in the Investment Bank portfolio were only used during trading hours of the exchanges that they interfaced with. These applications also had to be available right as the exchanges opened and performing well for the entire duration of trading activity. Having no real user activity meant that the only way to gain any insight into availability and performance of these applications was by using synthetically generated transactions.

Was this an ideal situation? No, but it was all we had to work with in the absence of real user activity. If the synthetic transactions were slow or throwing errors at least we could attempt to repair the platform before the opening bell. Once the trading day got started we measured real user activity to see the true picture of performance and made adjustments based upon that information.

Performance

Can’t Script It All

Having to rely upon synthetic transactions as a measure of availability and performance is definitely suboptimal. The problem gets amplified in environments where you shouldn’t be testing certain application functionality due to regulatory and other restrictions. Do you really want to be trading securities, derivatives, currencies, etc… with your synthetic transaction monitoring tool? Me thinks not!

So now there is a gaping hole in your monitoring strategy if you are relying upon synthetic transactions alone. You can’t test all of your business critical functionality even if you wanted to spend the long hours scripting and testing your synthetics. The scripting/testing time investment gets amplified when there are changes to your application code. If those code updates change the application response you will need to re-script for the new response. It’s an evil cycle that doesn’t happen when you use the right kind of real user monitoring.

Real User Monitoring: Accurate and Meaningful

When you monitor real user transactions you will get more accurate and relevant information. Here is a list (what would a good blog post be without a list?) of some of the benefits:

  • Understand exactly how your application is being used.
  • See the performance of each application function as the end user does, not just within your data center.
  • No scripting required (scripting can take a significant amount of time and resources)
  • Ensure full visibility of application usage and performance, not just what was scripted.
  • Understand the real geographic distribution of your users and the impact of that distribution on end user experience.
  • Ability to track performance of your most important users (particularly useful in trading environments)

Conclusion

Synthetic transaction monitoring and real user monitoring can definitely co-exist within the same application environment. Every business is different and has their own unique requirements that can impact the type of monitoring you choose to implement. If you’ve not yet read the Gartner research note I suggest you go check it out now. It provides a solid analysis on synthetic and real user monitoring tools, companies, and usage scenarios which are completely different from what I have covered here.

Have synthetic or real transaction monitoring saved the day for your company? I’d love to hear about it in the comments below.

  • Dowson Littlerock

    I prefer real time monitoring as I can not only see the real situation I am able to take immediate measures in case of some emergency. I still choose the software which can offer some troublehsooting for the problem I can have.

  • Trev

    RUM is only good if your users are actually using the system. Synthetic allows you to pick up availability and Perf issues when user are not using the system. This allows you to fix problems before they are experienced by your end users. There is definitely a need for both.

  • Coen Meerbeek

    I like the article and I really think this is useful for people new to end user monitoring.
    What I miss is a solution for the problem you are sketching in the post. You say that synthetic monitoring is not the solution for everything, which I can verify working at a large bank in the Netherlands which uses both synthetic and real user monitoring solutions, but is there an alternative? Real User monitoring is, but like you have said yourself, when there are no customers there is no monitoring.

Copyright © 2014 AppDynamics. All rights Reserved.