Cloud Native Monitoring vs Traditional Monitoring

Developers should learn Cloud Native Monitoring when building or maintaining applications in cloud environments, especially those using microservices architectures, as it helps detect and troubleshoot issues across complex, distributed systems meets developers should learn traditional monitoring when working in legacy or on-premises environments, or when maintaining systems with predictable, stable workloads where historical baselines are effective. Here's our take.

Cloud Native Monitoring

Nice Pick

Developers should learn Cloud Native Monitoring when building or maintaining applications in cloud environments, especially those using microservices architectures, as it helps detect and troubleshoot issues across complex, distributed systems

Pros

• It is crucial for ensuring application performance, availability, and security in dynamic cloud setups, such as those managed by Kubernetes, where traditional monitoring tools may fall short
• Related to: prometheus, grafana

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Traditional Monitoring

Developers should learn traditional monitoring when working in legacy or on-premises environments, or when maintaining systems with predictable, stable workloads where historical baselines are effective

Pros

• It is crucial for ensuring system reliability, compliance with SLAs, and troubleshooting known issues in production environments, such as server crashes or network outages
• Related to: log-management, alerting-systems

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Cloud Native Monitoring is a concept while Traditional Monitoring is a methodology. We picked Cloud Native Monitoring based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Cloud Native Monitoring wins

Based on overall popularity. Cloud Native Monitoring is more widely used, but Traditional Monitoring excels in its own space.