vFunction Adds Real-Time Observability and GenAI Tool to Migration Platform – DevOps.com

vFunction Adds Real-Time Observability and GenAI Tool to Migration Platform

vFunction, the AI-driven architectural observability platform today added real-time observability and GenAI assistant.

vFunction today added an ability to observe IT architectures in real-time to a platform that automatically converts monolithic application code into a set of microservices.

In addition, vFunction has added a generative artificial intelligence (AI) assistant that identifies issues and surfaces recommendations as changes are based to application environments. Based on the ChatGPT-4 service created by OpenAI, the vFunction Assistant is designed to make it simpler to remediate and refactor applications.

vFunction CEO Moti Rafalin said these capabilities all leverage OpenTelemetry, open-source agent software being advanced under the auspices of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) to collect telemetry data.

It’s not clear how many applications are instrumented using OpenTelemetry, however, a survey of 1,000 software engineering professionals conducted by vFunction suggests that as organizations look to streamline the management of application environments there is a clear need for increased visibility. A full 80% said these capabilities are either extremely or very valuable, with nearly four in 10 (39%) acknowledging they lack visibility into their IT architecture. A total of 40% said they advocate for a “shift left” approach to proactively address resiliency concerns earlier in the development lifecycle.

A similar percentage (41%) also plans to leverage generative AI to improve application performance and scalability, the survey finds.

The survey also finds more than half (51%) of respondents work for organizations that dedicate more than a quarter of their annual IT and engineering budgets to remediating applications, including refactoring and re-architecting efforts. More than three-quarters (77%) have implemented enterprise-wide initiatives to address technical debt.

Among those respondents, 57% work for organizations allocating more than a quarter of their IT budget to technical debt remediation involving monolithic applications, compared to 49% for microservices architectures. More than half 53% also noted their organization delayed major technology migrations or platform upgrades due to productivity concerns involving microservices. The survey also finds that 44% noted monolithic application complexity that results in a lack of clear domain boundaries and decreasing modularity is a major challenge.

Most application environments will be made up of monolithic and microservices-based applications for the foreseeable future. The challenge that organizations encounter is that as changes are made to application environments the level of drift away from the original architecture starts to increase.

At the same time, organizations accumulate technical debt as issues that should be remediated are left to be addressed at some future date. Unfortunately, many of those issues are never resolved, simply because new application development projects require DevOps teams to divert limited resources. However, as more applications are instrumented it becomes feasible to apply AI to reduce both drift and technical debt.

Each organization must determine to what degree they wish to modernize existing applications versus replacing or retiring them altogether. However, there are plenty of instances where legacy applications are still far too critical to be replaced. The challenge then becomes to what degree to update these applications, in a way that makes them more resilient and flexible as business requirements continue to evolve.

Filed Under: AI, Application Performance Management/Monitoring, Blogs, Business of DevOps, DevOps and Open Technologies, DevOps Practice, Doin’ DevOps, Features, News, Social – Facebook, Social – X Tagged With: ai, GenAI, observability, OpenTelemetry, vFunction

Secure Coding Practices

Step 1 of 7


Does your organization currently implement secure guardrails in the software development process?(Required)

Yes, extensively across all projects

Yes, but only in specific projects or teams

In the process of implementation

No, but planning to in the near future

No, and no plans to implement

What are the biggest challenges you face in implementing secure guardrails within your development processes? (Select all that apply)(Required)

Lack of awareness or understanding

Technical difficulties in integration

Resistance from development teams

Lack of suitable tools

Cost constraints

Other, tell us more:

How effective do you find secure guardrails in preventing security vulnerabilities in your projects? Rate on a scale from 1 (Not effective) to 5 (Highly effective)(Required)






To what extent are your secure guardrails automated?(Required)

Fully automated

Mostly automated with some manual processes

Equally automated and manual

Mostly manual with some automation

Entirely manual

What features do you prioritize in a secure guardrail solution? (Rank in order of importance)Ease of integration into existing workflowsComprehensive coverage of security vulnerabilitiesCustomizability for specific project needsMinimal impact on development speedActionable insights and recommendationsSupport for a wide range of programming languages and frameworks

What are your organization’s plans regarding the adoption or enhancement of secure guardrails within the next 12 months?(Required)

Expand the use of secure guardrails to more projects

Enhance the capabilities of existing secure guardrails

Maintain current level of secure guardrail use without changes

Reduce reliance on secure guardrails

No plans related to secure guardrails

What best describes your primary role?(Required)

Security Engineer

DevOps Engineer

Platform Engineer

Security champion on the development team

Software Developer

CISO (or equivalent)

Sr. Management (CEO, CTO, CIO, CPO, VP)

Manager, Director