CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Software System Performance and ReliabilitySoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring tools for DevOps and microservices: A systematic grey literature review

Open access
Giamattei, L., Guerriero, A., Pietrantuono, R., Russo, S., Malavolta, I., Islam, T., Dînga, M., Koziolek, A., Singh, S., Armbruster, M., Gutierrez-Martinez, J.M., Caro-Alvaro, S., Rodriguez, D., Weber, S., Henss, J., Vogelin, E. Fernandez, Panojo, F. Simon·2024·Journal of Systems and Software
DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111906
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Microservice-based systems are usually developed according to agile practices like DevOps, which enables rapid and frequent releases to promptly react and adapt to changes. Monitoring is a key enabler for these systems, as they allow to continuously get feedback from the field and support timely and tailored decisions for a quality-driven evolution. In the realm of monitoring tools available for microservices in the DevOps-driven development practice, each with different features, assumptions, and performance, selecting a suitable tool is an as much difficult as impactful task. This article presents the results of a systematic study of the grey literature we performed to identify, classify and analyze the available monitoring tools for DevOps and microservices. We selected and examined a list of 71 monitoring tools, drawing a map of their characteristics, limitations, assumptions, and open challenges, meant to be useful to both researchers and practitioners working in this area. Results are publicly available and replicable.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111906

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Bento, 2021, Automated analysis of distributed tracing: Challenges and research directions, J. Grid Comput., 19, 1, 10.1007/s10723-021-09551-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Di Francesco, 2019, Architecting with microservices: A systematic mapping study, J. Syst. Softw., 150, 77, 10.1016/j.jss.2019.01.001 · DOI
  3. Di Francesco, P., Malavolta, I., Lago, P., 2017. Research on Architecting Microservices: Trends, Focus, and Potential for Industrial Adoption. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture. ICSA, pp. 21–30. · DOI
  4. Ebert, 2016, DevOps, IEEE Softw., 33, 94, 10.1109/MS.2016.68 · DOI
  5. Garousi, 2019, Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering, Inf. Softw. Technol., 106, 101, 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.09.006 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Ghofrani, J., Lübke, D., 2018. Challenges of microservices architecture: A survey on the state of the practice. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Vol. 2072, pp. 1–8.
  7. Hernantes, 2015, IT infrastructure-monitoring tools, IEEE Softw., 32, 88, 10.1109/MS.2015.96 · DOI
  8. Kitchenham, 2013, A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering, Inf. Softw. Technol., 55, 2049, 10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Knoche, 2019, Drivers and barriers for microservice adoption – A survey among professionals in Germany, Enterpr. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. - Int. J. Concept. Model., 1
  10. Petersen, 2015, Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update, Inf. Softw. Technol., 64, 1, 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Riet, 2023, Optimise along the way: An industrial case study on web performance, J. Syst. Softw., 198
  12. Rothstein, 2009, Grey literature, Vol. 2, 103
  13. Schroeder, 1995, On-line monitoring: A tutorial, Computer, 28, 72, 10.1109/2.386988 · DOI
  14. Soldani, 2018, The pains and gains of microservices: A systematic grey literature review, J. Syst. Softw., 146, 215, 10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.082 · DOI
  15. Wang, 2021, Promises and challenges of microservices: an exploratory study, Empir. Softw. Eng., 26, 63, 10.1007/s10664-020-09910-y · DOI
  16. Waseem, 2020, A systematic mapping study on microservices architecture in DevOps, J. Syst. Softw., 170, 10.1016/j.jss.2020.110798 · DOI
  17. Waseem, 2021, Design, monitoring, and testing of microservices systems: The practitioners perspective, J. Syst. Softw., 182, 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111061 · DOI
  18. Zhou, 2021, Fault analysis and debugging of microservice systems: Industrial survey, benchmark system, and empirical study, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 47, 243, 10.1109/TSE.2018.2887384 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 55

Metadata

Authors
Giamattei, L., Guerriero, A., Pietrantuono, R., Russo, S., Malavolta, I., Islam, T., Dînga, M., Koziolek, A., Singh, S., Armbruster, M., Gutierrez-Martinez, J. M., Caro-Alvaro, S., Rodriguez, D., Weber, S., Henss, J., Vogelin, E. F., & Panojo, F. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • FZI Research Center for Information Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
Pietrantuono, R.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Systems and Software
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-02
Volume
208
Pages
111906
ISSN
0164-1212 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jss.2023.111906
OpenAlex
W4388914159
Cited by
55
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 10
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Systems and Software (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • e_Buah (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • KITopen
Funders
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
  • European Commission Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (871342)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Horizon 2020
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
monitoring tools, DevOps, microservices, software monitoring, tool selection, tool classification, agile software development, system evolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review