Is unified observability really unified?

In some ways, unified observability is the holy grail of IT systems monitoring. But is unified observability really unified even when this goal is achieved? The answer might surprise you.

Historically, each part of the IT stack operated in its own silo. Network, application, infrastructure, and security each monitored part of the stack, employing different tools and collecting different data.

The problem with this approach is that the complexity of the typical enterprise IT architecture today requires a holistic view of all aspects of the stack. Security and performance often are linked, and the ultimate goal of reliable end-user experience leans on the interrelationship of network, applications, and infrastructure. Data from only one part of the stack is not enough.

Enter unified observability.

With a unified view of operations that cuts across all four IT domains, the interrelationship among elements in each domain becomes clear. Along with that comes a more accurate picture of performance and security dynamics, and faster root-cause analysis.

But is unified observability really unified?

Gaps in enterprise network visibility

Even when an organization uses a unified observability platform that presents a holistic view of performance and security, there can still be gaps in visibility.

Lack of granularity

The first gap that can make unified observability less than truly unified is the lack of granularity. Observability might extend end-to-end and collect in a central dashboard, but there can be gaps in visibility when observability is not sufficiently granular.

One example is East-West network traffic. Network monitoring might capture activity between clouds, for instance, but not capture traffic within virtual appliances in a given cloud. This lack of visibility makes supposedly “unified” observability less than fully unified.

Data stuck in silos

A modern unified observability solution also might bring together data from various layers in the stack but not include data from third-party monitoring tools. Data is observed all along the stack, but not all data is observable because some monitoring data is stuck in a silo.

Again, so-called unified observability exists. But again, it doesn’t actually pass the test for being truly unified and complete. Without the inclusion of this third-party data, there are gaps and a complete, holistic picture along all layers in the tech stack is missing.

When unified observability shouldn’t be unified

Then there’s the situation where unified observability is counterproductive and decoupled as a result.

Unified observability is not decoupled in the technical sense, because a holistic view that draws information from data across the stack obviously improves visibility and leads to a greater understanding of performance and security dynamics. But unified observability can be counterproductive when it is not presented in the right way for a given audience, so it often is temporarily decoupled in presentation.

This is because each team within the enterprise has different needs and a different orientation toward the common data. What a network engineer needs for performance management is not the same thing as what a security professional needs when checking an organization’s security posture.

There is overlap, of course, and a holistic view enables both teams to better understand root cause and coordinate as necessary. But when unified data is not selectively shown, signal and noise get confused. Sometimes unified observability is intentionally not unified—although a unified observability platform should draw from this unified view and enable the ability to drill-down when needed.

So unified observability is not always unified in this situation, nor should it be. What’s actually important is the ability to unify observability on an as-needed basis.

Not all unified observability is created equal

It is important to understand when unified observability is not truly unified, and when it shouldn’t be unified, because these nuances ultimately impact the effectiveness of an organization’s unified observability platform.

In the case of not bringing truly unified observability to an organization, the issue is operating from tools that promise more than they deliver—and establishing a monitoring architecture that does include these needed components for achieving true unified observability.

In the case of when observability should not be unified, organizations should be mindful about the way that data is presented to different teams within the company. Context matters, not just full visibility. Ultimately, the actionability of data for a given team is as critical as comprehensiveness.

Accedian Skylight helps organizations reach true unified observability and expose the right data to the right teams for actionable observability.

Skylight was built from the ground up for unified observability across modern network architectures by using lightweight virtual sensors to capture all traffic both North-South and East-West. Not only can Skylight capture traffic all along the network as a result, including traffic within virtual machines, it also enables third-party data ingestion so data from proprietary and legacy tools can be included in the overall picture of operational dynamics.

The Skylight platform also makes this unified data selectively available so each team within an organization can focus on the data that is most relevant to its function. At the same time, a given team can drill-down to specific dynamics across the stack as needed.

Discover what it means to have true unified observability. Schedule a custom demo of Skylight today.